DTIC ADA119409: Soviet Dissident Scientists, 1966-78: A Study.

DISCLAIMER NOTICE

THISDOCUMENT IS BEST QUALITY
PRACTICABLE. THE COPY FURNISHED
TO DTIC CONTAINED A SIGNIFICANT
NUMBER OF PAGES WHICH DO NOT
REPRODUCE LEGIBLY.

SOVIET DISSIDENT SCIENTISTS, 1966-78: A STUDY

Marshall L. Brown, Jr.

CLEARED

f(jp QCiK n; JB'

AUG 0 3 t982< S

(..oif/no.-.H fOHfWttUOMUi- INFORM* W
An,i» MTiJiSl,v RfVltWiOASO-PAi
••• -mint If DtflNSf

i

u

% '

United State* Army Russian Institute
APO New York 09053

June 19T9

<1002482

. . \a*

z.7**zz** r=-

V' -~

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U. *. ARMT RUSSIAN INSTIfUtl
ARO M1W TORS etou

8 June 1979

FORE WORD

This research project represents fulfillment of a student
requirement for successful completion of the overseas chase of
training of the Department of the Army's Foreign Area Officer
Program (Russian).

Only unclassified sources are used in producing the research
paper. The opinions, value judgements and conclusions expressed
are those of the author and in no way reflect official policy of
the United States Government, Department of Defense, Department of
the Army, the US Army Intelligence and Security Command, or the
Russian Institute. The completed paper is not to be reproduced
in whole or in part without permission of the Commander, US Army
Russian Institute, APO New York 0^053.

Interested readers are invited to send their comments to the
Commander of the Institute.

Commanding

I

SUMMARY

study is aa analysis of the Soviet dissident scientists of the
1960's and 1970*8 - who they are, vhat they have protested, and why they
have protested. Over 550 names of scientists involved in dissident ac¬
tivities have been culled from unofficial 'samizdat* material available
in the Vest and relevant biographical information on these scientists has
been arranged in tabular form. On the basis of correlations found in
this data conclusions have been reached on vhat has caused the scientists
to turn to dissident activity. This study also includes a chronology of
dissidence in the Soviet scientific community in the period 1966-78, an
analysis of the groups vithin the dissident movement vith which the dis¬
sident scientists have aligned themselves, and some predictions on the
orospects of future dissidence among scientists.

II

4

Introduction
Chapter I.

Chapter II.

Chapter III,

Conclusion

TABLE OF COHTENTS

1

The Historical Development of Dissidence in the Soviet 1

Scientific Community

1. 1960-68: The beginning of collective dissent end 1

the resultant backlash

2. 19c9-71: The beginning of dissident groups and 13

the Jevisn movement

3. 1972-73: Massive governmental crackdown: Chron- 13

icle suppressed and wide-scale persecution

4. 197^-78: Attempts by tne autnorities to eradicate 23

dissident groups by selected arrests of leaders

5. Conclusion 31

Participation and leadership by Scientists in Dissi- 32
dent Groups Other Groupings of Scientists

1. Democratic /Human Rights Groups 33

2. Ethnic /Religious Groups 36

3. Revolutionary /Criminal Groups ^3

1*. Scientific/Professional Groups 4T

5. Social-elite Groupings >0

6. Conclusions 53

Causes of Dissidence in Dissident Scientists ■>*

1. Theoretical Framework 5**

2. Data (Biographical Tables) 57

3. Results 83

1*. Conclusions 133

105

III

Appendix 1 .

(Institutes at vhicn dissident scientists nave
wonted)

111

Appendix II

(dissident scientists active in the Soviet dis¬
sident aovement as of 1977-78)

lib

Appendix III

(Jewish scientists vno nave been refused eai-
5 ration and are still in the USSR)

117

note 8

Introduction

(pp 1-3)

118

Chapter I

(pp 4-31)

118

Chapter II

(pp 32-j3)

126

Chapter III

(pp 34-104)

137

Conclusion

(pp 105-110)

165

Bibliography

loo

(The defeat* of human rights vat) the
natural continuation of his scientif¬
ic work: a scientist cannot accept
the lack of freedom of information,
the forced conformity of convictions
and lying. In his civic vork (he)
maintained the same principles that
he did in science: full knowledge of
the facts, responsibility for their
exact formulation, and accuracy in
the conclusion. And, openess and
full disclosure. . .1

We (scientists) have one or two good
features. We have a comparatively
high degree of honesty. That cones
from our scientific style of think¬
ing, which is carried out without
reference to the opinions of other
men. And we are comparatively inde¬
pendent , which also comes from our
scientific training. We direct our
thoughts to the problem we are work¬
ing on. We are not easily distract¬
ed - comparatively, I mean... I think
we are better educated than politi¬
cians. . .2

INTRODUCTION

Whether there is something special in a scientist that leads him into
dissidence, something that is related to the scientific method, deductive
reasoning, and experimental proof, as reflected in the two quotes above,
is an interesting question, but not one that will be discussed in any
depth in this study. True, even a cursory knowledge of the Soviet dis¬
sident movement of the 1960's and 1970 's suggests the important role of
the scientist. A great number of the most prominent and influential dis¬
sidents have been scientists, such as SAKhAROV, ORLOV, TURChIN, TVERDOKh-
LEBOV, KOVALEV, ChAUDZE, LITVINOV, VOL'PIN, TsUKERMAN, PLYuShch, and
ScnchARANSKIY . * But not all scientists have been or are dissidents. This
study is an attempt to determine why same of the scientists have dissent¬
ed. Why other scientists have not is left to another researcher.

The major questions this study will address are: who are they? (are
there many dissident scientists, or does the prominence of the few sim¬
ply leave that impression); what do they protest? (are dissident scien-
fci*bs involved only in matters that affect them as scientists, or do
they become involved in such issues as religious freedom, human rights,
or national minority rights); why do they dissent? (what are some of the

•The names of scientists who appear in the table in Chapter III are
capitalized throughout the paper.

1

motivating factors behind their decision to dissent); what does all this
mean in terms of future dissent among scientists? (what projections can
be made).

The material used in researching these questions was almost exclu¬
sively "samizdat", the clandestinely-published dissident literature wide¬
ly circulated in the Soviet Union. The "samizdat" sources employed in
this study were issues 1-^9 of Khronlka tekushchikh sobvtiy (Chronicle
of Current Events), 30 April 1968 - 14 May 1976. So'oraniye document ov
sami zdata (Collection of Samizdat Documents), volumes 1-30, and Materi¬
ally samizdata (Samizdat Materials), 1971-77. The Journal, The Chronicle
of Human Rights in the USSR, volumes 1-31 (1973-78), which is publisned
by former Soviet dissidents now living in the Vest; was also used to com¬
pile data. The chief editor of this journal, incidentally, is ChALIDZE,
a physicist. Gary Penfield's comprehensive study. The Chronicle of Cur¬
rent Events: A Content Analysis (USARI, Garmisch, 1973) ."was an indis-
pensible source for identifying many of the dissident scientists and for
putting the scientists' contributions to the dissident movement from 1968
to 1971 into perspective. The biographical listing published by Radio
Liberty, Sovetskiye grazhdane zashchishchayut molodykh liter atorov (Sovi¬
et citizens defend young writers) (Guide #7b, Munich, May 1966), was al¬
so of great assistance in the compilation of the biographical information.
The personal working files of Peter Doran of Radio Liberty were likewise
extremely helpful, and the author is greatly indebted to Mr, Doran for
his interest in this study.

For the purpose of this study, a "scientist" is defined as a research¬
er-scholar involved in the natiaral sciences of physics, matnematics, bi¬
ology, chemistry, geology, cybernetics, and oceanology. Linda Lubrano,
incidentally, used similar criteria in her studies of Soviet scientists,
confining her research to physicists, mathematicians, chemists, and bi¬
ologists. 3 Engineers were not included in this study unless the engi¬
neer was involved in research in one of the natural sciences. The pri¬
mary reason for the exclusion of engineers is that the job title "engi¬
neer” in the Soviet Union is a nebulous, nondescript ive term; Albert
Parry has suggested that no more than a third of all Soviets who hold
the title of engineer actually have the education to merit it.^

Another caveat on the use of the term "scientist" in this study is
that, because a scientist often ceased being an active researcher-schol¬
ar after his initial dissidence (he lost his clearances, his Job, and
the access to research laboratories) and had to turn instead to non-
sclentific Jobs, all dissidents who were active scientists (according to
the above definition) at the time of their initial dissent were includ¬
ed. Teachers in the natural sciences have also been included because
their Jobs often involve active research. Students in the natural sci¬
ences were also mentioned, primarily to show the existence of dissidence
down at the level of the university science department. There is a
chance, too, that the students might resurface as active scientists in
the future, so their inclusion in this study might serve as a "Dissi¬
dent Scientist Early Warning" system.

It is Just as important to define what is meant by "dissident" for

2

the purposes of this study. A dissident is one vho has taken an action
or supported a position that has incurred the vrath of the autnorities;
thereafter the dissident is persecuted, ostracized, or cajoled into re¬
joining the fold. Barghoorn defines dissent as

a broad range of articulated negative attitudes re¬
garding political matters.. .the ultimate object of
(which) is to correct mistakes, to right wrongs, or
...to protest against... an intolerable evil, 5
and this is a good summary of the various objectives of the dissident sci¬
entists. It should be noted that, in a free society, most dissent is le¬
gal; in a totalitarian state, almost no dissent is. A dissident then, is
not, in the general sense of the word, a criminal.

To conclude this introduction, a few words should be said about the
validity of any researcher's claim that he can explain human behavior (in
this case, an act of dissidence) and even predict behavior on the basis
of data. The author of this study assumes that there is some validity to
this claim. There is no concensus in the social sciences on this matter,
which complicates this study's theoretical underpinning somewhat. In any
case, upon this "benavioralist" act of faith the author has constructed
a model which purports to determine the "cause” of dissent from personal
and environmental factors: date of birth, educational level, ethnic or¬
igin, and so on. All dissident scientists are examined on these factors,
and factors showing up the same for a number of scientists are consider¬
ed to be significant in understanding the causes of the dissident act.

This model is presented in Chapter III. The first two chapters were add¬
ed because of the author's desire to please the "traditionalists": both
of these chapters offer data couched in historical-descriptive packaging.
It is hoped that this "methodological fence-straddling" will not be dis¬
concerting to the reader; it could even be suggested that by using this
methodological mix all the relevant data will be analyzed; data not pick¬
ed up using one technique should surface using another.

3

CHAPT2R I

This chapter offers a historical overview of dissidenee in the scien¬
tific community and focuses on the issues which have sparked dissent.
Primary attention will be devoted to events in the 1966-78 time frame,
and the events will be presented chronologically. The purpose of this
chapter is to document the participation of scientists in the dissident
movement and to establish the historical framework for the analysis in
Chapter II of dissident groups in which scientists have been active.

Some of the information in this chapter will also be the basis for sta¬
tistical data included in Chapter III. While not all of the known e-
vents which have involved or affected scientists are included in this
chapter in the interests of (relative) brevity, it is believed that all
the significant events and issues are touched upon to the extent that
some conclusions on the historical development of dissidenee among sci¬
entists can be reduced.

1. 1966-68: The beginning of collective dissent and the resultant bac

lash.

The mass participation of scientists in the Soviet dissident movement
began with the trial of writers A. S. Sinyavskiy and Yu. M. Daniel on 10-
1U February 1966. Prior to 19 66 there had been several instances of ais-
sidence on the part of individual scientists (such as physicist KAPITsA,
who refused Stalin's order to work on the atomic bomb in the 19^0' s,l 1
physicist SAKhAROV, who, after helping to develop the hydrogen bomb, lob¬
bied for various arms control measures in the late 1950's and in the ear¬
ly 1960'3,2 mathematician PIMENOV, who was convicted of forming an anti-
Soviet group among students in Leningrad in 1957,3 mathematician VOL'PIN,
who participated in an open meeting in Moscow's Pushkin Square in support
of Sinyavskiy and Daniel in 1965,^ and matnematics student and later
teacher MAShKOVA, wno was convicted of forming an anti-Soviet group
in 1956)2, but there had been no instances of scientists dissenting collec¬
tively.

Following the Sinyavskiy-Daniel trial two protest letters were sent
to Soviet authorities. Neither directly protested tae trial, but both
expressed the concern of Soviet intellectuals , engendered by the triad,
teat Stalinism was being rehabilitated. The first letter, sent sometime
in 1966, probably in February, was signed by twenty-five individuals,
six of whom were scientists (all academicians and physicists) .0 They ex¬
pressed their support of the condemnation of Stalin as contained in
Khrushchev's 20th CPSU Congress speech and warned that any renabiiitation
of Stalin would lead to serious Internal and international repercussions.
Although he didn't sign this letter. Academician and radioengineer, A. I.
oerg stated that if Stalin were rehabilitated at the forthcoming 23rd
Forty Congress, he would leave the Academy of Sciences as a sign of

protest. 7 As it turned out, whether because of these protests or not,
the Congress did not rehabilitate Stalin. The second letter, signed by
twenty-one intellectuals, nine of whom were scientists, in the Fall of
1966, expressed the fear that changes approved in the Soviet criminal
code. Articles 190-1 and 190-3 , vould be used indiscriminately ana con¬
trary to "Leninist principles of socialist democracy. These changes
made it much easier for the government to prosecute individuals devi¬
ating from the official line, and were presumably adopted with the ex¬
periences of the Sinyavskiy-Daniel trial in mind, in anticipation of
similar trials in the future.

Several prominent Soviet academicians, Joined by over a hundred and
fifty other intellectuals and scientists, signed a letter sometime in
1967 which called for the elimination of censorship and proposed draft
legislation for the free exchange of information. 9 This letter turned
out to be the final attempt for many of these scientists to change the
Soviet system through the signing of collective protest letters, prob¬
ably because they realized the inefficacy of the letters and the risk
involved of incurring the wrath of the authorities. In any case, of the
seven members of the Academy of Sciences, only SAKhROV and LEONTOVICh
were to continue active dissidence; GEL'FAND signed only one more pro¬
test letter, in 1968.

Several arrests and trials of dissidents in 1967 sparked the concern
of scientists; by far the largest response was for the arrests (in Jan¬
uary 1967) and forthcoming trial of A. I. Ginzburg, who had compiled and
disseminated a "White Book" on , the Sinyavskiy-Baniel trial, and YU.
Galanskov, who was the editor of the underground magazine Phoenix. Prior
to the dissidence surrounding the Ginzburg-Galanskov case, though, the
trial of V. Bukovskiy, V. Delone, and V. Kushev in September 1967 brought
two scientists, LITVINOV and VOL* PIN to the attention of the authorities.
Delone and Kushev, incidentally, had been arrested for participation in
a demonstration on 22 January 1967 protesting the arrests' of Ginzburg ._nd
Galanskov. Bukovskiy was involved in planning the demonstration . VOL'-
PIN had written to a Moscow nevspaper on inaccuracies he had found in an
article on the Bukovskiy-Delone-Kushev trial, indicating that such mis¬
takes were inevitable when a trial was not open to the public. 1° LIT¬
VINOV was called into the KGB on 26 September 1967 and warned not to pub¬
lish and distribute a transcript of the trial, under the threat of crimi¬
nal prosecution. 11 He did not, however, stop collecting documents for
the transcript . 12

In November 1967 a petition was sent to the Procurator-General of the
USSR by 116 individuals, twenty of whom were scientists, asking for per¬
mission to attend the Ginzburg-Galanskov trial, scheduled for early
1968.13 A second petition was sent a month later by forty-two individu¬
als, of whom fourteen vere scientists. I1* Five scientists vho had not
signed the earlier protest signed the second one. Thus, by the end of
1967 twenty-five scientists, none of whom was an academician or noted
scientist, had taken steps which vould single them out as dissidents in
the eyes of Soviet authorities. Because of their lack of notoriety and
high academic position, they were probably much more likely to elicit
repressive measures from the authorities. There may have been security
in numbers, though, for in 1968 they were joined by nearly one hundred

and fifty other scientists, who protested the Ginzburg-Galanskov trial
itself.

The floodgates of dissidence in the scientific community opened vide
in January 1968 with the Ginzburg-Galanskov trial. The impetus for much
of the dissent was the conviction of Ginzburg, Galanskov and their co¬
defendants, Dobrovol ' skiy and Lashkova, but some of the protests in 1968
were in support of those who, after protesting the trial, vere themselves
arrested, harrassed, relieved of their jobs, or kicked out of the Party.
The Chronicle of Current Events, which, according to Rothberg, was the
product of top Soviet scientists and technologists having access to so¬
phisticated communications systems, 15 began publication on 30 April 1968,
after the Ginzburg-Galanskov trial but in the midst of the protesting
about the trial. The Chronicle from the • beginning recorded a lot of in¬
formation on illegal reprisals accorded those vho protested, a signifi¬
cant number of whom vere scientists.

On the eve of the Ginzburg-Galanskov trial, thirty-one of Ginzburg's
friends, six of whom vere scientists, sent a letter to the Moscow Munic¬
ipal Court in which they expressed their concern on a number of alarm! ng
circumstances preceding the trial: the long pre-trial confinement, the
absence of information in the press on the reason for the arrests, and
the prolonged invest igation.l6 The signers of this document vouched for
Ginzburg's honesty and propriety, and claimed that he didn't participate
in political matters as such. They further asserted that his compilation
of documents from the Sinyavskiy-Daniel trial could not be sufficient
reason for his arrest and trial; that, if so, this could not be a healthy
move for a society which recently had witnessed the mass rehabilitation
of people falsely convicted under Stalin. They asked that the trial be
open and fair.

Another protest letter was sent during the trial. This one was signed
by eighty individuals, fourteen of vhcm were scientists.1? The letter
appealed to the Soviet authorities to prevent the trial from becoming
"closed", under the cover of which, it was asserted, the KGB would set¬
tle accounts with people it didn't like. The signers further claimed
that there had been flagrant violations of legal procedure at the trial
and they called for the initiation of legal action against the appro¬
priate court officials.

The largest show of support in connection with the Ginzburg-Galanskov
trial come in response to the open letter, "To World Public Opinion,"
written by Daniel's wife, L. Bogoraz, and LITVINOV. 18 The letter, which
vas released 11 January 1968, eventually elicited the support of nearly
235 'Soviet citizens. Bogoraz and LITVINOV alleged in the letter that
during the trial the most important Soviet legal norms had been violated,
due to the actions of the judge and prosecutor, who had not allowed de¬
fense witnesses to exercise their legal rights. They claimed that the
courtroom was filled with specially selected people vho harassed the de¬
fendants and defense witnesses. They appealed to Soviet and world pub¬
lic opinion to demand public condemnation of this "shameful" trial, re¬
lease of the defendants from custody, and a retrial which would include
international observers. This letter was sent directly to the West with
an appeal to disseminate it as quickly as possible. The authors thought.

6

correctly, that it would he hopeless and futile to send it to Soviet
newspapers .

The Bogoraz-LITVINOV letter was supported on every account by nearly
235 individuals, as mentioned above. The first letter of support, sign*
ed by 170 people, sixty of whom were scientists, vas sent 5 February 1963
to Procurator-General Rudenko at the concl. / on of the trial. 19 The
letter repeated the charges that the defendants, witnesses and close
friends of the defendants had been harrassed and that legal procedure
had not been followed. The signers claimed that the conviction and
sentence were not supported by the evidence presented at the trial. They
also maintained that over the previous several years dissidents had been
tried in a more arbitrary manner, and that until this arbitrariness was
stopped and condemned, no one could feel secure. They called for a re¬
trial, the inclusion of some of the signers of the letter at the trial
as public representatives, and for the appropriate punishment of those
who were responsible for conducting the trial. An additional sixty-
five signatures were collected between February and April, when the case
was taken to appeals court.

In the three months following the Ginzburg-Galanskov trial additional
scientists protested the sentences and improper trial procedures. Of
the 306 individuals signing these protest letters from Moscow, Novosibirsk
and Kiev, ninety-eight were scientists. The Novosibirsk letter, signed
by forty-six people, fifteen of whom were scientists, decried the fact
that in order to get information on the trial they had to turn to foreign
Communist publications, and asserted that a sense of civic responsibility
forced them to denounce "closed^* political trials as intolerable. 20 The
signers claimed they could not allow the Soviet judicial system to be re¬
moved again from the control of public opinion. They called for the re¬
versal of the Judge's decision and a review of the case, with full dis¬
closure in the press of the relevant materials.

In February 1968 121 Soviet citizens, including forty-nine scientists,
most of whom were from Moscow, sent a letter of protest on Ginzburg's
conviction to Brezhnev, Kosygin, Podgornyy, the chairman of the Supreme
Court and the Prosecutor-General , 21 in the letter they claimed that
there vas no evidence connecting Ginzburg vith anti-Soviet emigre organ¬
izations and that the insinuation that this vas the case, as Soviet news¬
papers had reported, was similar to the tactics used in the Stalinist
trials of 1937. They requested a review of the Ginzburg case.

The letter sent from Kiev in April 1968 vas addressed to Brezhnev,
Kosygin, and Podgornyy, and vas signed by 139 people living in the
Ukraine, thirty-four of whom were scientists. 2z The letter expressed
concern of the individuals signing it about the numerous political trials
of young people from the scientific and cultural intelligentsia in the
preceding years. The signers were bothered by the "closed" nature of a
number of trials in the Ukraine from 1956-66, claiming that this vas done
in violation of the Soviet Constitution. They feared that because of the
"closed" nature of the trials illegalities would tend to occur, and they
cited as an example the Ginzburg-Galanskov trial, about vhich they had
heard from the Bogoraz-LITVINOV letter. They claimed that in many of the
trials the defendants had been convicted for views that were not anti-

7

Soviet at all but vere critical of isolated incidents. The Ukrainians
furtner maintained that these recent political trials vere a fora of
suppressing the civic activity and social criticism which are absolutely
essential for the health of any society, and that these trials witnessed
a restoration of Stalinism. Finally, they called on Brezhnez, Kosygin
and Podgornyy to intervene to ensure that the Judicial authorities
strictly adhered to Soviet lav. They also expressed the wish that the
difficulties that had arisen in Soviet socio-political life could be
kept within the realm of ideas and not handed over to the KGB and the
procurator .

3efore moving on to subsequent issues in 1968, a few conclusions should
be reached on the preceding protest letters. First of all, one should be
struck by the similar tone and content, couched in legal terminology and
anti-Stalinism, with concern for full disclosure of the Judicial proceed¬
ings and the pover of the KGB. Since the drafters of these protest
letters didn't always have a sample protest letter at their side when
drawing up the letter, these similarities must reflect common views and
concerns. Secondly, the protest letters criticize more than the issue
at hand. In the case of the Bogoraz -LITVINOV letter, the appeal for
international observers at a future political trial implies that only
under foreign pressure and intervention is Justice preserved in any
political trial. The supporters of the Bogoraz-LITVINOV letter used their
letter to denounce previous trials of dissidents; the Novosibirsk protest¬
ers assailed the Soviet press for insufficient coverage of the trial.

The Ukrainians denounced trials in the Ukraine from 1956 and asserted
that social criticism was necessary. Finally, these protest letters u-
nited over one hundred and seventy scientists in a common cause, shoving
them that there vere like-minded scientists in other parts of the Soviet
Union. While it is doubtful that a strong feeling of solidarity vas e-
voked by the signing of these collective protest letters, it must be ac¬
knowledged that the phenomenon of collective protest in a totalitarian
state is so rare and potentially dangerous (to the state) that the signers
must have realized the importance of their act and felt strongly about it.
The fact that they had all made a commitment exposing themselves to simi¬
lar reprisals should have unified them to some extent.

A few days after the Ginzburg-Galanskov trial a new incident arose
which greatly affected part of the scientific community, the forceable
incarceration of mathematician VOL'PIN in a psychiatric hospital on lU
February, presumably for his active participation in the dissident move¬
ment since 1965. A protest letter vas sent to the Minister of Health
and the Prosecutor-General by ninety-five people, primarily mathemati¬
cians, who expressed concern for VOL'PIN's well-being at the hospital. 23
The protesters claimed that VOL'PIN's hospitalization vas a flagrant
violation of medical and legal standards, and they requested that he be
released. VOL'PIN was finally released 12 May 1968, vithout having been
charged vith a crime. The mathematicians who signed the letter, however,
vere not as lucky. They vere under substantial pressure to modify their
position, which seemed to be critical of the Soviet Judicial system. The
denouement of this pressure vas a letter, broadcast by Radio Moscow on 26
March 1968, which denounced the attempts of the foreign press to exploit
the earlier letter. This latest letter was signed bv fifteen of the orig¬
inal ninety-five, all from Moscow State University. 2** The fifteen claimed

8

that they uad been concerned only witn the conditions at tne -articular
ncspital in whicn VOL 'PIN vas placed and the fact that his family had not
been consulted. They stated further tnat they were "pleased" to find out
that he had been transferred to anctner nospital "core suited to his case."
The fifteen also mentioned that they had been aware tnat VOL 'PIN hod
been under psychiatric observation for a number of years and had been in
mental hospitals before. Further, they claimed that their concern was
for a colleague, "a sick man but a capable mathematician.” It cannot be
overlooked that only fifteen were cowed into issuing this retraction.

One must assume, moreover, that the Soviet authorities would have pre¬
ferred a unanimous retraction, as so much of Soviet life is conducted
under the ruse of unanimity. The remaining eighty who refused to re¬
tract the letter, then, risked the increased displeasure of the author¬
ities. In fact, the refusal to retract assumes nearly as much importance,
in terms of commitment to dissidence, as the decision to sign it in the
first place. One could plead ignorance of the ensuing political reper¬
cussions in the latter case; there would be no such defense in the former.

At the Moscow Party Conference in March 19o6 the main topic of the
speeches was the collective protest letters of the previous two months on
the Ginzburg-Galanskov trial and VOL'PIN's confinement. Academy of
Sciences President M. V. Keldysh presented a speech on the Academy's gra¬
titude for the Party's trust and support of scientists, most of whom in
turn "sincerely support the Party line in all matters."25 There were a
few scientists he admitted, who, succumbing to provocations, took incor¬
rect moves in their public lives by sending letters in support of people
who were conducting hostile activities. Keldysh expressed his belief
that the overwhelming majority &f these scientists who had strayed had
done so out of political immaturity, not understanding the tense politi¬
cal situation in the world. To correct this situation Keldysh said that
the Academy of Sciences would take greater effort to explain the real
nature of things to these people, but that these people ought to under¬
stand that it wasn't they who determine what Soviet science would be,
that science will progress in any case.

Keldysh, after receiving a letter from an American mathematician on
the fate of VOL 'PIN, had an answer drafted which alluded to VOL'PIN's
sicxness, and forced his brother-in-law, Academician P. S. NOVIKOV, to
sign it, after four hours of haranguing him.2fa NOVIKOV, his wife
(Keldysh's sister) L. V. KELDYSh, and their son, S. P. NOVIKOV had all
signed the letter in support of VOL 'PIN and two letters in support of
Ginzburg.

In March 1966 the Party organizations in Akademgorodok (Novosibirsk)
began a witch hunt which led to administrative punishment for signers of
the collective letters on tne Ginzburg-Galanskov trial. 2? The Party
organization also closed a number of cultural organizations, young
people's clubs and galleries. Members of the Party wno belonged to or
were in sympathy with these organizations were expelled from the Party,
apparently because the authorities thougnt that these cultural organiza¬
tions harbored the liberal attitudes which led to the protest letters.

In April i960 tnere were several meetings in Moscow institutes at
wnich the signers of the collective protest letters were publicly re-

9

buked. At Keldysh’s institute, the Institute of Applied Mathematics, ten
scientists, including academicians ZEL'DOVICh and GEL'FAND, had signed
protests. Keldysh appeared at an open meeting, where he condemned his
colleagues and expressed his sorrow that mathematicians had not lived
up to the Party's trust in them. 29 He further stated that the actions
of the dissident scientists hindered the Party's progress towards de¬
mocratization and made contacts with foreign scientists more difficult,
since many Soviet scientists would not be able to be sent abroad. At a
meeting of the Party committee of the Institute of Atomic Energy the
case of Academician LEONTOVICh was discussed. 30 LEONTOVICh, the head of
one of the moat important departments at the Institute, had not only sign¬
ed one of the collective letters on the Ginzburg-Galanskov trial, he also
had composed its text. At the meeting it was reported that the Moscow
Party Committee had directed that LEONTOVICh be removed from his job. To
effect this a representative of the Moscow committee presented the mem¬
bers of the institute committee with material on the Ginzburg-Galanskov
trial. Several members of the institute committee complained that the
material brought (only the summary of the accusations) was not sufficient,
and the institute committee did not adopt the Moscow committee's decision.
On the very same day, senior workers at the institute were given commemo¬
rative medals at an assembly in honor of the 25th Anniversary of the ins¬
titute. The greatest applause was accorded LEONTOVICh when he was hand¬
ed his award.

In June 1968 SAKhAROV's famous essay, "Thoughts on Prjgress, Peaceful
Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom,111 called by Harrison Salisbury "a
high watermark in the movement for liberalization within the Communist
world, began circulating in "samizdat. "32 The essay, SAKhAROV's first
public statement that could be considered a legitimate threat to the ex¬
isting Soviet regime, propounded the view that the world was on the brink
of disaster and that only through cooperation between the US and USSR
could this fate be averted. SAKhAROV believed that this cooperation was
inevitable because the US and USSR were converging as a result of mutual
political, economic and technological borrowing, leaving eventually no
grounds for hostility between the two countries. While SAKhAROV probably
reflected the world outlook of a member of his fellow scientists, there
were other views held by dissident scientists. One such view, from "nu¬
merous representatives of the technical intelligentsia of Estonia," is¬
sued in July 1968 in "samizdat," called for a more activist program, see¬
ing in SAKhAROV too much faith in scientific and technological progress
in achieving world peace and too little recognition that the USSR had to
change radically before any convergence of the US and USSR could take
place. 33 The Estonians called on the leading minds of Soviet society to
come up with programs vhlch would fundamentally change Soviet reality in
a moral, political, and economic sense.

Soviet attempts at interference in Czechoslovak internal affairs in
July 1968 led five Communists, one of whom was the physicist PAVLINChUK,
to write an open letter of support to the Czechoslovak Communists and all
the Czechoslovak people on 28 July 1968. in the letter the five ex¬
pressed their conviction that the Soviet Party-government leadership would
not use armed force against Czechoslovakia for fear of being discredited
and losing the confidence of the people. The five disassociated them*
selves from the "unobjective and one-sided" reporting of the events in

Czechoslovakia in the Soviet press, and indicated that the Russian people
had a genuine feeling of friendship for the Czechoslovak people.

The Soviet government ' s failure to realize the five Communists 1 hope
for non-intervention in Czechoslovakia vas a shock to many Soviet citi¬
zens. LYuBARSKIY called the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia a heavy
blov for himself, for many of his friends and for many of his later ac¬
quaintances. 35 five people, including LITVINOV and V. Del one, grandson
of Academician and mathematician S. Delone, and son of chemist I. 0. De-
lone, demonstrated at Red Square on 25 August 1968 in protest of the So¬
viet action in Czechoslovakia. 3° They were brought to trial in October
and convicted. On 1 December 1968 a letter, signed by ninety-five peo¬
ple, sixteen of vhom were scientists, vas sent to the deputies of the
Supreme Soviets of the USSR and Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Re¬
public (RSFSR) protesting the conviction. 3^ It vas alleged in the let¬
ter that there had been no legal basis for initiating criminal proceed¬
ings against the defendants, and that the main problem vas not proce¬
dural irregularities, but violations of the civil rights guaranteed in
the Soviet Constitution, the freedom of speech and the freedom of demon¬
stration. The ninety-five called upon the deputies to perform their du¬
ty of defending these freedoms by moving for the dismissal of the sen¬
tences and cessation of the criminal proceedings. 3°

The arrest of vriter A. T. Marchenko in late July 1968 sparked a let¬
ter of protest to the procurator of the region in vhich Marchenko vas ar¬
rested. The letter vas signed by five individuals, including LITVINOV,
RUDAKOV and BELOGORODSKAYa.3* BELOGORODSKAYa vas arrested 8 August 1968
for having in her possession petitions calling for Marchenko's release.

Her arrest, in turn, vas protested by LITVINOV, KAPLAN and RUDAKOV. 3E-
LOGORODSKAYa vas tried in February 1969 and became the first person to be
tried since Stalinist times for merely supporting a dissident.^0 Up to
this time, people had been fired from their Jobs, expelled from the Par¬
ty, or kicked out of school, but none had been brought to trial. BELOGO-
RODSKAYa had not vritten or even distributed the petitions she vas accus¬
ed of having in her possession; in fact, the petitions, in the form of
letters addressed to various Soviet vr iters asking for Marchenko's re¬
lease, were found in a purse she had left by mistake in a taxi. BELO-
GORODSKAYa's step-sister, L. Bogoraz, composed the letters but vas not
subjected to criminal proceedings. ^ BELOGORODSKAYa vas sentenced to one
year confinement.

Mathematician BURMISTROVICh, who had been involved in dissident activi¬
ties to a greater extent than had BELOGORODSKAYa, vas arrested in May 1968
but vas not brought to trial until May 1969 . 2 BURMISTROVICh vas accused
of distributing "samizdat” copies of the literary vorks of Sinyavskiy and
Daniyel to his friends, vho vere, as it turned out, scientists themselves.
BURMISTROVICh had hired typists to copy various unpublishable (in the US¬
SR) literary vorks, including Bulgakov, Kafka, Joyce, Mandel'shtam, Tsve-
tayeva, Sinyavskiy, and Daniyel, because he vas unable to acquire them in
editions that vere not "samizdat." BURMISTROVICh gave copies of these
vorks to an old acquaintance from his student days at Moscov State Uni¬
versity, mathematician TURUNDAYeVAKAYa, and to an acquaintance of hers,
chemist BAGATUR'YaNTs. BURMISTROVICh, at one point, had asked BAGATUR'Y-
aNTs to reproduce material on the Ginzburg-Galanskov trial and soma

11

poetry by Mandel'shtam and Tsvetayeva. Hone of these scientists believed
that "samizdat" vas harmful to the Soviet system or that they were doing
anything illegal. At the trial however, 3AGATUR ' YaiJTs indicated tnat ne
vas ready to accept the official position on "samizdat" and have nothing
to do with it in the future, and it vas BAGATUR'YaNTs who, five months
after BURMISTROVICh's arrest, vent to the KGB and signed a statement ap¬
parently disassociating himself from BURMISTROVICh. TURUNDAYe VSKAY a
testified that she enjoyed "samizdat" but that she vas threatened by the
KGB to renounce it, under the threat of being arrested herself, her hus¬
band, TURUNDAYeSKIY, a Party member and also a mathematician, testified
that he had read some of the "samizdat" his wife had acquired and thought
that the "harmfulness" of the material depended on who vas reading it.

At the end of the trial BURMISTROVICh indicated that he would no longer
insist that the works of Sinyavskiy and Daniel were not slanderous, but
he repeated his assertion that he turned to these materials to "know the
truth." He asked rhetorically, can it be that the truth is ideologically
harmful, and ansvered that he believed that the Soviet system vas strong
enough to endure any truth. Kis confidence in the system, however, did
not spare him from receiving a three-year sentence. Bis wife, biologist
KISLINA, wrote a letter to several Soviet newspapers and the procurator
to complain about the illegalities manifested during the investigation
of her husband's case, but the protests came to naught. 3

In August 1968 two other scientists, chemist KVAChEVSKIY and physicist
STUDENKOV, were arrested for alleged dissident activities, k They were
tried, together with their cohort Gendler, in late December 1968 in
Leningrad. KVAChEVSKIY vas accused of having led anti-Soviet discussions
at his home in 196k and 1965 and of having distributed LITVINOV'S ques¬
tionnaire on trial and prison procedures to former political prisoners.
KVAChEVSKIY had been acquainted with Leningrad Marxists and fellow chemist
RONKIN since 1957 and had obtained material from RONKIN and fellow Marxist
KhAKhAYeV only two days prior to their arrest in 1965. 5 KVAChEVSKIY had
also signed one of the letters protesting the Ginzburg-Galanskov trial
and had been fired from his Job because of it. 0 He refused to admit any
guilt during the trial and was sentenced to four years confinement.
STUDEHKOV vas accused of anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda, as veil
as illegally brewing alcohol and forging documents. He admitted his guilt
and vas sentenced to only one year confinement. STUDENKOV had constructed
a still because, as Gendler testified, "We were too poor to buy vodka.”
STUDENKOV had been associated vith Gendler and KVAChEVSKIY only since
19b7, apparently out of the spirit of adventure. STUDENKOV had prepared
microfilms of "samizdat" using equipment from his place of work and, af¬
ter being released from KGB custody for a short period of time and sub¬
sequently destroying the microfilm, he vent around the institute bragging
about how easily he had made it through the KGB. He had also forged doc¬
uments, enaoling a group of people to travel at a cut rate. STUDENKOV's
sentence vas comparatively light because of his confession of guilt and
the important scientific research he vas involved in. He worked in a
laboratory, which vas involved in highly classified explosives worx, at
the Leningrad Physico-Technical Institute} the laboratory vas so impor¬
tant that it allegedly was subordinate not to the director of tne insti¬
tute but to the Minister of Defense himself. STUDENKOV ' s attorney used
the importance of STUDENKOV's scientific work to obtain a reduction in
his sentence. One point made by the attorney vas that even in prison

12

ST'uDEiiKOV aaa been wording on scientific setters. In IT UDEIiKOV’s final
words to the court he promised to devote the rest of his life to science.

Another point to make about the kVACnEVSiilY-STUDLHKOV-Geadler trial is
tnat KVACnEVSKIY ’ s older brother, geologist C. KVAChEVSKIY, naa wanted to
serve as his brother’s attorney (KVAChEVSKIY nad refused to use the state-
appointed attorney) but was sent on temporary duty out of town during tne
trial. b7 C. KVAChEVSKIY shoved up much later, ial>77, signing a protest
letter to tne Politburo on the new Constitution.**®

To sum up the period 1966-68, let us examine the official oacklasn,
otaer than arrests, which accompanied the collective letters. At least
eight scientists were kicked out of the Party, ^9 fifteen were removed
from their institutions, 50 at least two received Party reprimands, 51 and
three were not allowed to continue teaching. 52 In all, at the very least
thirty-five scientists were, without benefit of trial, punished for their
actions in this period. It is clear that the message from the author¬
ities was received by the other protesting scientists, for only about for¬
ty of the more than two hundred and eighty scientists who first protest¬
ed in 1967 and 1968 continued to dissent afterwards. 53

2. 1969-71: The beginning of dissident groups and the Jewish movement.

The first "legal" dissident group in the USSR, in the sense that it
was not formed underground and that it strictly adhered to Soviet lav,
was created in May 1969 by fifteen individuals, five of whom, T. VELIKA¬
NOVA, KOVALEV, LAVUT, PLYuShch and POD’YaPOL’SKIY, were scientists. 5b
The group, called "The Initiative Group for the Defense of Human Rights
in the USSR" (The Initiative Group), performed basically the same func¬
tions as did the compilers of the Chronicle of Current Events, collecting
and disseminating information on violations of human rights in tne USSR.
It would not be surprising, in fact, if the Initiative Group turned out
to have been the driving force behind the Chronicle . for in 197 b, over a
year after the suppression of the Journal, three people, all members of
the Initiative Group (KOVALEV, T. VELUCAHOVA and T. Knodorovich) , public¬
ly assumed responsibility for its resurrection and continued life. 5 5 a
second "legal" dissident group, the "Human Rights Committee," also known
as the "Sakharov Committee," was organized on b November 1970 by three
physicists, SAKhAROV, ChALIDZE and TVERKOKhLEBOV . 56 This group assumed
a more legalistic tack than did the Initiative Group, concentrating much
more of their effort on legal research and consultation in matters con¬
cerning human rights. Together, these two groups formed rallying points
for dissidents in the 1969*71 period and thereafter, and provided valu¬
able leaoership and research experience for their members, many of warns
later formed new dissident groups. Without these groups, it is doubtful
tnat tne dissident movement could have continued following the reprisals
meted out by the authorities to signers of tne collective protest letters

of 1967-06.

The Jevish emigration movement began with protests over the arrests of

lb

200 Jews in the vake of the 15 June 1970 hijacking attempt of a Soviet
aircraft in Leningrad and the subsequent trials in December 1970, and in
May and June 1971. The first trial, vhich heard the case of the so-call¬
ed "Leningrad 11," who were the Jews who had actually boarded the air¬
craft, resulted in death sentences for tvo of the alleged hijackers. 57
In protest of these sentences, five scientists, tvo of idiom were Jevs
and »ll of whom were connected vith the "Human Rights Committee,” sent
a telegram to Podgornyy on 27 December 1970, in vhich they asked that the
tvo hijackers not be executed and that the accused, along vith other Jevs
wanting to emigrate, be alloved to leave the Soviet Union.'® SAKhAROV al¬
so vrote an open letter to Presidents Nixon and Podgornyy in vhich he _
called on the former to guarantee a fair trial for Angela Davis and on
the latter to lessen the sentences of the "Leningrad 11. * Also pro¬

testing the trial vere fifty-nine Soviet Jevs, eleven of vhom vere scien¬
tists.60 The tvo trials in 1971, that of the "Leningrad 9" in May. and
of the "Kishinev 9" in June, had several scientists as defendants; more
about these trials will be included in Chapter II.

A number of other significant events occurred in the 1969-71 period
vhich affected dissident scientists, events vhich witness the continuing
pressure brought to bear on all dissidents by the authorities and the
activism on the part of scientists in support of their ovn dissident
goals as veil as other dissidents.

On 2U March 1969 former kolkhoz chairman and dissident I. A. Yakimo-
vich vas arrested for allegedly slandering the Soviet system. Yakimovich
had previously protested the Gibzburg-Galanskov trial in a personal let¬
ter to Suslov vhich vas later published abroad and had protested the So¬
viet invasion of Czechoslovakia. On 2 April tventy-five people, eight of
vhom vere scientists, signed a protest letter in his support, expressing
shock that Yakimovich had been arrested and confidence that he vas inno¬
cent. ^ The protesters further stated that they considered it their duty
to do everything possible vithin legal limits to stop this "shameful ac¬
tion of the punitive organs."

On 13 April 1969 a mathematics student at Latvian State University,

II 'ya RIPS, attempted self-immolation at the foot of the Freedom Monument
in Riga in protest of the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia. ^ He vas
later accused of anti-Soviet agitation and on 2 October vas sentenced to
a period of hospitalization at a psychiatric hospital. He vas released
23 April 1971 and vas alloved to emigrate to Israel in January 1972.

RIPS vas an outstanding mathematician and vas slated to go to the Insti¬
tute of Physics of the Latvian Academy of Sciences at the end of the
school year in 1969. He vas one of the vinners of the Internation Mathe¬
matics Olympics for Schoolchildren at the age of 15, bad entered the uni¬
versity at age 16, and his senior paper, in the opinion of bis professors,
could have served as the basis for a doctoral dissertation. RIPS' phys¬
ics teacher, LADYZhENSKIY , vas questioned about RIPl' after the incident -
apparently LADYZhENSKIY had supported RIPS' protest - and vas later fired
from his job at the university. LADYZhENSKIY vas convicted of distribut¬
ing "samizdat" in December 1973 and sentenced to three years imprison¬
ment .

n7.hPrrT.EV participated in the 6 June 1969 Crimean Tatar demonstration

lk

in Moscov on Mayakovskiy Square. ^ The demonstrators demanded a solution
to the Crimean Tatar nationality problem and the release of political
prisoners. Although the demonstrators vere not subsequently arrested
(they vere merely beaten and expelled from the city), DZhEMILEV had ex¬
pected arrest for the protest. He stated that he had to protest because
he refused to give in to the abominations then running rampant in the
USSR through his own inaction and passivity.

The arrest of rexigious writer A. Levitin-Krasnov on 12 September 1969
for his support of dissidents and freedom of worship in the USSR elicited
a protest letter, signed by thirty-two individuals, six of whom vere sci¬
entists, on 26 September.”? One of these scientists also signed a letter
from seven Christians to the Vorld Council of Churches in September call¬
ing for Levitin-Krasnov 's release, along with the release of mathematics
teacher TALANTOV, who had previously been sentenced to two years conf la¬
ment for religious dissidence.0” The seven Christians signing the letter
asked the Council to intercede on behalf of these two dissidents and to
assist in the normalization of religious life in the USSR.

Solzhenitsyn was expelled from the Union of Soviet Writers in December
1969 for his political vlevs, and his expulsion touched off a protest
from a number of Moscov intellectuals. One letter, sent to the Writers'
Union on 9 December 1969, expressed the viev that Solzhenitsyn's expul¬
sion was another manifestation of Stalinism in Soviet society. The let¬
ter was signed by thirty-nine people, ten of idiom vere scientists. ”7

In March 19T0 physicists SAidiAROV and TURChlN and historian R. A. Med¬
vedev, brother of biologist MEDVEDEV, released an appeal for the gradual
democratization of the USSR in a letter addressed to Brezhnev, Kosygin
and Podgornyy.®” The three dissidents asserted that technological and
economic progress vas integrally connected to the democratization of the
state, and that without the freedoms of information and speech the state
could not continue to develop in science and technology. They cited as
an example the decline of Soviet technology by failure of the USSR to send
a man to the moon ahead of the US. They did not question the role of the
Party in the governing of the USSR, but they did maintain that democrati¬
zation should be thorough, including, presumably, the Party itself. The
authors further asserted that these views vere not theirs alone, but vere
shared to one degree or another by a significant part of the Soviet intel¬
ligentsia.

Mathematician ChERHYShOV vas arrested in March 1970 for anti-Soviet
propaganda and vas incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital.*^ He had writ¬
ten a number of philosophical etudes on such subjects as the spiritual
liberation of the Russian people and bad given this material to two peo¬
ple, for which he was arrested. While there were no protest letters which
accompanied ChERHYShOV 's arrest, he vas a popular teacher at a technolog¬
ical in?* itute and vas on good terms with the administration and his col¬
leagues, so it could be assumed that' his arrest aroused some feeling of
sympathy and support for him among fellow scientists.

The forceable incarceration of MEDVEDEV in a psychiatric hospital on
29 May 1970 evoked a wave of dissent from the scientific connunity.

MEDVEDEV was a highly influential scientist and a firm anti-Stalinist
Marxist vho written several books on Soviet science and scientists
which appeared in "samizdat.” On 4 June 1970 twenty scientists signed a
letter to the Ministers of Health and Internal Affairs and to the Procu¬
rator General in which they expressed their conviction that the hospi¬
talization was an illegal act, one which had aroused their concern and
alarm. 70 They called for MEDVEDEV'S release and for legal, action to be
taken against those vho had illegally deprived MEDVEDEV of his freedom.

The scientists further saw in MEDVEDEV's hospitalization a danger for them
all, that

no honest and principled scientist can be assured of
his own security if similar reasons can cause repres¬
sion in the form of incarceration in a psychiatric
hospital for an indeterminate period of time with the
loss of all human rights, except the right to be the
object of the doctor's examination. 7^

Also on k June 1970 an open letter to "Scientists, Scholars, and Ar¬
tists of the Whole World" was written by an anonymous group of "scientif¬
ic workers" of the Academy of Sciences who called for support of MEDVE¬
DEV. 7* MEDVEDEV's incarceration was viewed by this group as only one ex¬
ample of many of lawlessness in the USSR, but it did evidence an escala¬
tion in arbitrariness in that it was the first time the authorities did
not try for even a semblance of legality. The group indicated that it
was appealing to the rest of the world as a last resort, for it had learn¬
ed that appealing to Soviet authorities meant only further repression.

The "scientific workers" called on their colleagues throughout the world
to boycott all Soviet scientific?, technological and cultural exchanges
and to stop negotiations with the USSR until MEDVEDEV's release. Other¬
wise, they saw the beginning of a new mass pogrom of Soviet scientists.

MEDVEDEV was released on 17 June 1970, after a meeting of the Minister
of Health, Academy of Sciences President Keldysh, SAKhAROV, KAPITsA, AS-
TAUROV and other scientists who had supported MEDVEDEV. 73 MEDVEDEV' s re¬
lease was apparently contingent on his promise not to participate in fur¬
ther dissident activities. 75

On 20 June 1970 thirty-one people, seven of whom were scientists, sign¬
ed an open letter expressing the fear that MEDVEDEV's experience could
mean that anyone, regardless of his scientific or social contributions,
could be dealt with "medically. "75 They also expressed the hope that the
scientific community would be as vocal in support of other people facing
the threat of hospitalization as it had been of MEDVEDEV. They recogniz¬
ed that a "corporation of scientists" had defended MEDVEDEV and they main¬
tained that those who did not belong to any "corporation" needed support
that was Just as whole-hearted and passionate. The scientists who signed
this letter, it should be noted, were not from the scientific elite which
had signed the earlier protests. As "ordinary" scientists, they might
have been trying to cast off the tinge of parochialism and elitism that
might have surrounded the massive support of MEDVEDEV from the scientific
comunity.

Mathematician PIMENOV, vho had been in trouble with Soviet authorities

16

in the past, was arrested in July 1970 and tried and convicted in October
of the sane year for distribution of "samizdat" wnich slandered the Sovi¬
et system. 7o PIMENOV had been sent to a psychiatric hospital in 19^9 for
submitting a request to leave the Komsomol and was arrested in 1957 for
writing articles on the Hungarian Revolution and for attempting to fora
an anti-Soviet group among university students. He received a ten-year
sentence for his activities, of which he served only six years. He sub¬
sequently went on to get his candidate and doctoral degrees .77 On 11
November 1970 ten scientists wrote a letter to the Supreme Court of the
USSR in which they expressed their concern over the severity of PIMENOV’ s
sentence (five years in exile) for actions that in a democratic society
would be considered normal. 78 They also protested the ambiguous nature
of the crime of slandering the Soviet system and the fact that such trials
were "closed." It vas a sign of PIMENOV'S importance as a mathematician
that, not only did he not receive a prison term, he did not have to cur¬
tail his scientific activity while in exile. A special department of the
Komi Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences was established for him in
Syktyvkar so that he could continue working in his mathematics specialty.

The hospitalization of dissident N. Gorbanevskaya on July 7, 1970 and
the arrest of her friends, V. Tel'nikov and Yu. Vishnevskaya, who had at¬
tempted to attend her trial, evoked a letter of protest in July from
nineteen people, seven of whom were scientists. 79 The protesters com¬
plained that these incidents showed that all it took to be persecuted by
the authorities now was friendship with a dissident, the first time this
happened since Stalinist times. They further asserted that a man can
lose ell his rights and freedoms except one without losing his humanity.
The final freedom was the right to love someone else. The motivation for
sending this protest letter, they affirmed, was to show that they had not
lost their humanity.

On 25 September 1970 a memorial to biologist N. I. Vavilov, who had
been persecuted by Stalin and had perished in a labor camp, was dedicated
in a Saratov cemetery by Vavilov's son.80 The younger Vavilov had col¬
lected money for two years from Soviet biologists and the elder Vavilov's
students, colleagues and friends. The authorities monitored who was col¬
lecting money for the memorial and in connection with this questioned a
number of important scientists from Moscow, Leningrad and Saratov at their
institutes. Several of them, in fact, received Party reprimands.

The decision of the Nobel Committee to avard Solzhenitsyn the Nobel
Prize in 1970 was applauded by a group of thirty-seven people, twelve of
vhcm were scientists, in a letter to the Committee on 10 October 1970.^1
The signers of the letter, recognizing that the avarding of the Nobel
Prize to Solzhenitsyn might lead to a new wave of denunciations of the
vriter, considered it their duty to express their gratitude publicly to
Solzhenitsyn for his work and to condemn the denunciations as a national
shame.

Biologist STROKATAYa, wife of convicted dissident S. Karavanskiy, was
arrested 8 December 1970 and charged with the distribution of "samizdat."®
She nad been a witness at her husband's trial and had been accused of bad
conduct during it; in fact, she was threatened with the loss of her Job
unless she changed her behavior. On 21 December 1970 five dissidents.

T

including historian P. Yakir and Ukrainian nationalist V. Chomovol , an¬
nounced the formation of a "Citizen's Committee for the Defense of Nina
Strokataya," which vas to collect information pertaining to STROKATAYa's
caie, collect money to aide STROKATAYa and her husband, and demand that
STROKATAYa be given her rights to choose a lawyer and to have an "open"
trial. 33 In case the demands of this committee were not met, the five
dissidents vowed to turn to the United Nations' Committee on the Rights
of Man. STROKATAYa was sentenced 19 May 1972 to four years confinement.

On 2U March 1971 ChALIDZE's apartment was searched and a number of
documents and files were confiscated, including issues of the Chronicle
of Current Events. 3^ SAKhAROV protested this search in a letter to the
Minister of Internal Affairs, saying that the archives and materials
were necessary for the work, of the Human Rights Committee, to which both
of them belonged. &5 On 30 March 1971 ChALIDZE had to report to the KGB
to answer questions on foreigners he had met with during the month and
what he had given them. 86

The arrest and psychological testing of dissident V. Bukovskiy on 29
March L971 elicited a protest letter from fifty individuals, thirteen of
whom were scientists. 87 Scientists SAKhAROV, LEOKTOVICh and ShAFAREVICh
and writer A. Galich also wrote a letter to the Procurator General and
the Minister of Justice in December 1971* Just before Bukovskiy's trial,
in which they expressed their conviction that there was no basis for
Bukovskiy's arrest and trial and conveyed their hope that his trial would
be objective, "open", and would honor all the defendant's rights. 8°

3. 1972-73. Massive government crackdown: Chronicle suppressed, wide-

scale persecution.

The Soviet authorities had their greatest successes in the 1972-73
period in terms of crushing dissent: The Chronicle of Current Events was
forced to cease publication, a number of prominent dissidents were ar¬
rested, and SAKhAROV, the acknowledged leader of the human rights movement
in the USSR, was publicly condemned. It probably seemed to many dissi¬
dents at the time that the Soviet dissident movement was approaching its
final days. It is difficult to determine exactly what was the turning
point. It might have been the outrage over the terrorization of SAKhAROV
in late October 1973 or the establishment of the Soviet Section of Amnes¬
ty International in toe same month. Whatever the case, by 197 ^ the dissi¬
dent movement had regained its vitality, despite the continuation of ar¬
rests and persecutions.

According to TVERDOKhLEBOV , from the beginning of 1972. to March 1973
at least thirty-five people, seven of whan were scientists, had been in¬
terrogated by the KGB on the publication and distribution of the Chroni¬
cle of Current Events. 89 As a result of the authorities' pressure, the
Chronicle ceased publication from October 1972 until the spring of 1971*,
depriving the dissident movement of a mouthpiece and source of information.

18

Mathematician PLYuShch, a member of the Initiative Group, was arrested
15 January 1972 for distributing "samizdat” and for allegedly anti-Soviet
conversations. PLYuShch had also written a letter to the editors of the
newspaper Komsomolskaya pravda in January 1963 protesting the Ginzburg-
Galanskov trial , for which he was removed from his job. 90 He was ruled
mentally ill at his trial in late January 1973 and was incarcerated in a
psychiatric hospital. One of the witnesses at PLYuShch* s trial., a math¬
ematician and Candidate of (Physico-mathematical) Sciences identified on¬
ly as V., had been pressured by the KGB into denouncing PLYuShch and tes¬
tified that PLYuShch had given him "samizdat" material. 91 The matnema-
tician had been close to PLYuShch in the years prior to his arrest and,
whether because of his relationship with PLYuShch or the fact that he was
caught with "samizdat" in his apartment, he was fired and was without
work for a period of time. The KGB worked on him, alternating threats
with enticements (a job and an apartment), and finally achieved its goal.
The striking similarity of this "betrayal" to the "betrayal" at LYuBAR-
SKIY*s trial only three months later (see below) leads one to believe
that the authorities had decided that pitting one scientist against anoth¬
er was a very useful tactic.

LYuEAPSKIY was arrested 17 January 1972 and was sentenced to five years
confinement at the conclusion of his trial in la»e October 1973 for posses
ion and distribution of "samizdat. "92 LYuBARSKIY had not participated in
any demonstrations, signed any protest letters, or written any "samizdat";
he simply turned to "samizdat" in the aft irmath of the Soviet invasion of
Czechoslovakia to acquire additional information on the event. LYuEABSXIY
admitted that he had received ^pme of his "samizdat" from VOL' PIN, who,
in the meantime, had emigrated to the US. A fellow scientist, close
friend, and co-author of LYuBABSKIY ' a , B. M. Vladimirskiy, was apparently
pressured into testifying against LYuBARSXIY at the trial; the fact that
a personal conversation between the two friends had been used as evidence
of a criminal act was cited by LYuBARSKIY as a dangerous precedent. Math¬
ematician KRISTI was placed in a psychiatric hospital on 2 November 1972
for attempting to attend LYuBARSKIY' s trial;93 she was released only after
SAKhAROV's intercession on 29 November.

Mathematician 30L0NKIN was arrested in June 1972 for dissemination of
the Chronicle and other "samizdat" documents, for which ae was sentenced
to four years confinement and two years exile. 9^ During his imprisonment
his doctorate was annulled and his scientific works on cybernetics con¬
fiscated. He was arrested again in April 1978, just weeks before the end
of his exile, for allegedly stealing government property and sentenced to
another three years in confinement. 95 SAKhAROV, believing that the reason
for BOLONKIN's second sentence was the KGB's fear that he might emigrate,
wrote a letter on 15 August 1978 to participants of the International
Congress of Mathematicians in Helsinki with an appeal to come to their
colleague’s aid. 96

On 28 September 1972 mathematician ShIKhANOVTCh was arrested and
placed in complete isolation pending investigation of his case. 97 On 23
January 1973 SAKhAROV and his wife attempted to have ShIKkANOVICh relea¬
sed into their custody, but their attempt was unsuccessful. Finally, on
5 July 1973 SAKnAROV, his wife, and geophysicist P0D"YaP0L*SKIY, having
found out that ShIKhANOVICh had undergone a psychiatric examination and

had been aeterainea to be mentally ill, wrote an open letter to all psy-
cniatrists, doctors, and mathematicians of the world, as well as all peo¬
ple on eartn, appealing for an ena to psychiatric repression.^0

In June 1972 the Supreme Soviet of the ESFSE issued a decree setting
minimum fines to be imposed on people giving prisoners "illegal." provi¬
sions. SAkhAP.OV and LEOl.'TOVICh, appealing as fellow scientists, sent a
telegram to the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, Academician
and physicist M. D. Miilionschikov, wuo was also the deputy director of
the Institute of Atomic Energy (LEONTOVICh's Institute), in which they
expressed tneir fear that the decree would mean worse conditions for
prisoners, who existed in a state of chronic starvation as it was.^
SAKhAP.OV and LZONTOVICh wrote that they wanted to believe tnat Million-
shchikov would not refuse to take part in overturning this decree; it is
likely that both scientists knew Millionshchikov personally. They also
called on the delegates to the Supreme Soviet to speak up for reform of
penal legislation to eliminate starvation in prisons.

In September 1972 two letters calling for amnesty for political pris¬
oners and the abolishment of capital pu ishment were sent to the Supreme
Soviet of the USSR. These measures, to be in honor of the 50th Anniver¬
sary of the Formation of the Soviet Union, were proposed by a group of
fifty-odd people, nearly half of whom were scientists. The first letter
called for the release of all prisoners convicted of (Soviet Criminal
Code) Articles 190-1, 190-2, 190-3, 70 and 72, or in connection witn re¬
ligious beliefs or the desire to emigrate. 100 The second letter request¬
ed the repeal of capital punishment on moral grounds and on the grounds
that it was not socially justifiable. 101

One minor, although quite pathetic, trial involving a number of sci¬
entists was the trial of physicist TEMKIN for custody of his daughter.
TEMKIN had received permission to emigrate on 19 October 1972 with his
daughter, but, when they went to pick up the visas on 23 October, he was
told that his wife, from who he was divorced, had refused to let her
daughter leave the Soviet Union. 102 After TEMKIN and his daughter, who
wanted to emigrate, had written to a number of agencies and officials in
both the USSR and abroad, his wife took him to court to deprive him of
his parental rights. At the 17 January 1973 trial the scientists V. LEV-
ICh, KhAIT, RAYeVSKIY, YaKhot, and KUSTANOVICh all vouched for TEMKIN ’ s
character and parental qualities ; 103 the court, however, decided in
favor of TEMKIN1 s wife. In February 1973 his daughter was seized at
TEMKIN ' s mother's apartment by the police and returned to her mother;
TEMKIN was arrested for resisting the police. On IS June 1973 he declar¬
ed a hunger strike, and emigrated several days later. 10**

On 3 January 1973 BELOGORODSKAYa was arrested for anti-Soviet propa¬
ganda in connection with the dissemination of "samizdat". She had been
arrested in 19b6 (see above) on a similar charge. During the summer of
1973 ner husband's grandfather. Academician B. Delone, and KAPITsA inter¬
ceded on her behalf, and their support was apparently significant, for
she was released 1 6 November 1973 and all charges were dropped. 105

In February 1973 the Soviet press delivered its first attacks on
SAKhAROV's dissident activities, a series of attacks wnicn culminated in

20

the 23 August 1973 letter signed forty academicians, 10° at least se¬
ven of whom were fellow physicists and one of vhom, EJIGEL'GARDT, had
signed a 196b protest letter on changes in the Soviet criminal code which
could he used to persecute dissidents (see above). The academicians cen¬
sured SAKhAROV for his memoranda, which slandered "the governmental sys¬
tem and the internal and external policies of the Soviet Union." They
also claimed that he was opposed to the USSR's policies on the "relaxa¬
tion of international tensions," a position which hurt the reputation of
the Soviet scientist.

On 15 August 1973 SAKhAROV was called in to talk, with the Pirst Depu¬
ty Procurator General and was given a warning to stop associating with
foreigners. 107 SAKhAROV had several days previously granted an inter¬
view to a Swedish reporter, to whom he explained his evolution as a dis¬
sident. He admitted in the interview that when he wrote his famous 1968
essay, in which he saw the convergence of socialism and capitalism, he
was too far removed from the basic problems of people because of his pri¬
vileged status and environment . 108 He had then seen Soviet socialism as
inherently positive, he claimed, but since then had come to see it mainly
as a form of state capitalism. Eventually, he lost faith in socialism
completely. SAKhAROV saw the Soviet system as being internally quite sta¬
ble and had little faith or hope in Western support of Soviet dissidents.
The First Deputy considered this interview a violation of SAKhAROV' s se¬
curity pledge, despite the fact that the interview had nothing at all to
do with SAKhAROV 's field of physics:

Because of the nature of your previous work you had
access to state secrets of the utmost importance.

You made a signed statement to the effect that you
would not divulge strfte secrets, that you would not
meet with foreigners. But you are meeting with for¬
eigners and giving them information, which might be
of interest to foreign intelligence agencies. I ask
you to consider the seriousness of this warning and
draw the conclusions for yourself. 1°9

SAKhAROV replied to this charge, and the implied threat, that he never
had and never would divulge military or military-technical secrets and
that he had not dealt with secret work since 1968 anyway. The First Dep¬
uty, however, indicated that this made so difference at all.

SAKhAROV and Solzhenitsyn, who was also under attack at this time, were
supported in a protest letter on 9 September 1973, signed by a group of
ten Jews, eight of whom were scientists. HO The Jews, all of vhom had ap¬
plied to emigrate and realized that this protest letter might risk their
chances of emigrating, felt that silence on the matter only made them par¬
ty to the crime and believed that the risk was worth it. They viewed the
repression of SAKhAROV and Solzhenitsyn as a harbinger of a return to the
"darkest days in the history of the USSR." TURChIR had also written a
letter of support for SAKhAROV in September, decrying the campaign direct¬
ed at SAKhAROV' s discreditation and calling on all supporters of progress,
democracy and peace to raise their voices in SAKhAROV' s defense, 111 TUR-
ChlN viewed the campaign against SAKhAROV as harmful to the international
position of the USSR and to the policy of coexistence, because it provok¬
ed distrust as to the intentions of the USSR.

21

- * ■» 'tonVS Kft rtfti

4

at-

In a letter written to the President of the World Federation of Sci¬
entists by seven female prisoners , one of whom was the scientist STEO-
KATAYa, in September or October 1973, the campaign against SAKhAROV, wa¬
ged in part by establishment scientists, was cited as evidence that
under the conditions of Stalinist tyranny was formed
a generation of scientists who were capable of parti¬
cipating in scientific progress, but who were unable
to understand the problems of social progress.

' Conclusive proof of this, according to the seven prisoners, was the fact
that one of the scientists persecuting SAKhAROV, Academician and genet¬
icist Dubinin, was himself a victim of Stalinist repression. The women
called on Soviet scientists to become aware of this "ghost from the
past," repression, which was being carried out with the participation of
other scientists, and stated that Soviet scientists should realize that
participation in police acts was incompatible with scientific worn.

The worst fears of SAKhAROV 's supporters were nearly realized when, on
21 October 1973, he was threatened in his apartment by two Arabs who
claimed to be members of the Palestinian terrorist group "Black Septem— .
ber."i!3 Ten days prior to this incident SAKhAROV had given an interview
in which he refused to criticize the policies of Israel, stating that
Israel was waging a war for its survival and that a repetition of the
WWJI genocide of the Jews should not be permitted to occur. 11^ The Arab
terrorists demanded an explanation of this comment from SAKhAROV, telling
him that they never warned a person twice. Solzhenitsyn came to SAXhROV's
defense in a letter on 28 October in which he expressed his conviction
that this act was done with the full knowledge and encouragement of the
Soviet authorities ;115 moreover, he feared that this was a new method to
be used by the authorities in dealing with dissidents, hiring professional
killers. Solzenitsyn vowed to devote the rest of his life to destroying
the killers if such an event were to take place. Four other dissidents,
three of whom were scientists, issued a statement on 30 October also ex¬
pressing the opinion that this attack was not committed without the know¬
ledge of the Soviet author it ies.H^

On 28 August 1973 TVERDOKhLEBOV's apartment was searched and a number
of documents were confiscated, including all his legal literature, his
human rights Journals, and the part of the Human Rights Committee archives
he maintained ;U7 ChALIDZE, another member of the Committee, had had his
files confiscated in 1971 and had since emigrated to the US. Viewed to¬
gether with the campaign against SAKhAROV, then, the confiscation of
TVERDOKhLEBOV's files was an attempt by the authorities to eliminate the
Human Rights Committee as a viable dissident organization by removing its
information sources. The campaign against SAKhAROV was an attempt to si¬
lence the group's spokesman and leader.

One of the few occurrences favorable to the dissident movement in the
1972-73 time frame was the emergence of ORLOV as an active dissident. In
an open letter to Brezhnev on 16 September 1973, ORLOV presented a well-
conceived essay on the reasons for the backwardness of the USSR in its
economy, science and culture and on possible solutions to this problem.
ORLOV cited Marxist ideological interference as the reason the USSR was
as far behind in science. 118 The West was moving ahead in areas of tech¬
nology whicn the ideologists in the USSR had dismissed as unacceptable.

22

despite the fact that these aev areas of technology furthered science.
ORLOV proposed the "experimental method" as the way changes in govern¬
ment should be effected, with complete openess and freedom of discussion.
In other words, an end to ideological interference. He found fault vita
Marxism as a descriptive body of knowledge in that it ignored the contri¬
butions of morality and conscience in history, which ORLOV described as
among the most powerful driving forces of history. In response to the
apparent belief of the Soviet leaders that scientific development could
continue without lifting censorship and repression, ORLOV asserted that
a scientist's intellect was formed by both scientific tradition and his
cultural environment, and that limiting artistic imagination limited
scientific imagination. 119 ORLOV, then, in the scope of his ideas and
the breadth of his knowledge, almost immediately assumed a position in
the dissident movement which was on the level of SAKhAROV, TURChIN, and
TVERKOKhLEBOV.

Between September and October 1973 a new human rights group, initially
called "Group 73,” later the "Soviet Section of Amnesty International,"
was formed by eleven people, seven of whom were scientists, including
TVERDQKhLEBOV, TURChlH, ORLOV, and KOVALEV . 120 Two of the scientists,
TVERDOKhLESOV and KOVALEV, had been members of earlier dissident groups.
The authorities relatively quickly moved in to eliminate this new group,
and the arrests and harrassment of its members are documented in the next
section.

4. 1974-78 : Attempts by the authorities to eradicate dissident groups.

In the period 1974-78 the Soviet authorities began a systematic series
of arrests to deplete the dissident organizations of their leading activ¬
ists and spokesmen, designed ultimately to eliminate the groups altogether.
Because of the large number of scientists involved in dissident groups,
this policy move affected dissident scientists in the most direct way,
resulting in the arrests of six of the most active of them. Scientists
did not, however, lessen their support of other dissidents during this
period, and signed numerous protest letters in the latter's defense.

On 27 February 1971* the threat that V, Bukovskiy might be transferred
to Vladiaar Prison prompted the writing of a protest letter to the League
of the Rights of Man by eight individuals, five of whom were scientists. 121
The protesters called on the Vest to support Bukovskiy, citing Western
support as having earlier saved Bukovskiy from a psychiatric hospital and
more recently having saved A. Amal'rik. Bukovskiy was arrested on 29
March 1971 for anti-Soviet slander and had been, up to that time, a spokes¬
man against the psychiatric repression of dissidents. He was sentenced
to seven years confinement and five years exile.

The refusal of imprisoned literary critic G. Superfin to testify at
dissident V, Khaustov's trial on 5 March 197^ garnered the support of
forty-four people, eleven of whom were scientists, who demanded Superfin's
release and the intercession of a commission from the International

23

Association of Jurists into his case. I22 The protesters also decried the
fact that Superfin had not been tried himself and that his testimony,
vhicn he later renounced, was obtained illegally by the KGB investigators.

In early 197 U KOVALEV, T. VELIKANOVA, and T. Khodorovich announced pub¬
licly that they had assumed responsibility for the resurrection and con¬
tinued publication of the supressed journal, Chronicle of Current E-
vents.123 the previous issue of which had been distributed in October 1972.
This was a significant but dangerous move on their part, as it opened
them up to charges of disseminating anti-Soviet propaganda, a criminal
offense. No one had publicly admitted compiling or publishing the Chron¬
icle in the 1966-72 time period. The Chronicle resumed publication in
the spring of 197^, when four issues covering the period from October 1972
to May 197^ were distributed, and publication has continued up to the
present time (1979)« despite the subsequent arrest of KOVALEV and the emi¬
gration of Khodorovich.

SAKhAROV, in an open letter to fellow academician ETTGEL' GARDT on 29
May 197U, denounced him for telling US and European scientists and pub¬
lic officials that open support of SAKhAROV in the Vest was not helpful
to SAKhAROV or hii family. 12U ENGEL 'GARDT had also told Westerners that
the August 1973 letter, in which forty academicians had condemned SAKh¬
AROV (one of whom had been ENGEL ' GARDT ) , had saved SAKhAROV from more
serious consequences. ENGEL' GARDT' s conversations had purportedly been
rife with protestations of goodvill towards SAKhAROV and his position,
with only a hint of condescension concerning SAKhAROV 's naivete, careless¬
ness and inexperience. In response SAKhAROV stated that he had conscious¬
ly chosen his own life style, which admittedly might be far from pragmatic,
and that he didn't need ENGEL 'GARDT to correct it. SAKhAROV further main¬
tained that open support of him in the West was the best way to help him.
Whether ENGEL' GARDT was nothing more than the government's errand boy,
sent abroad to pose as a liberal scientist while undermining SAKhAROV, is
hard to determine. ENGEL 'GARDT, it should be recalled, did take part in
a protest in 1966. It is likely that, as a Jew and as a relatively lib¬
eral thinker, ENGEL 'GARDT was forced to make certain concessions to keep
his post as director of the Institute of Molecular Biology and to be al¬
lowed to travel abroad. It may well be that ENGEL' GARDT 's ideas were
close to SAKhAROV' s, the difference being, of course, that SAKhAROV chose
to elucidate his ideas publicly.

On 2d November 197 ^ V. Osipov, the editor of the "samizdat" Journal
Veche « was arrested, in protest of which a statement was released by six¬
teen individuals, seven of whom were scientists. 125 Veche, the first
periodical devoted to the Russian nationalist movement, was published
openly but unofficially from January 1971 until Osipov's arrest. Osipov
had refused to confront the authorities politically in his journal, hoping
that the regime would not oppose his patriotic activities. Since he gave
less importance to the problem of human rights than to the problem of the
decay of the Russian nation, he assumed that he was less of a threat than
vere most Soviet dissidents. Osipov's wife was mathematics teacher MASh-
KOVA, who was a poet who had contributed to Veche. l2^ She was also a
former political prisoner, arrested for the first time in 1958 for cre¬
ating an anti-Soviet organization and for the second time in 19&6 for
attempting to illegally cross the border with her former husband. MAShKOVA

wrote an open letter in support of Osipov on 28 December 1974, in which
she revealed that she had been persecuted by the police since her hus¬
band's arrest, a situation that was aggravated by the fact that she was
seven months pregnant and vas in dire financial straits. 127 She asked
for financial assistance and support of the activists in the Christian
and humanist movements in Osipov's defense.

KOVALEV was arrested on 27 December 1974, four days after his apart¬
ment ms searched and a large amount of "samizdat" confiscated. 128 KO¬
VALEV vas the first of the dissident scientist leaders to be arrested in
the 1974-78 period. The formal reason for his arrest vas his alleged
relationship to the "samizdat" Chronicle of the Lithuanian Catholic
Church, which he purportedly used in compiling the Chronicle of Current
Events. KOVALEV had been a "free-thinker" since 19 5&, when, as a stu-
dent at Moscow State University, he vas one of the authors of a letter
to the dean of the Biology Department demanding the restoration of ge¬
netic (destroyed by Lysenkoism) as a scientific discipline, for vhich he
was summoned to the KGB. 129 la February 1968 KOVALEV signed one of the
protest letters in support of Ginzburg, and in 1969 he becsme a founding
member of the Initiative Group, for vhich he vas fired from his position
at Moscow State University. 130 KOVALEV later became a member of the So¬
viet Section of Amnesty International, and he continued his vork of sup¬
porting dissidents and disseminating "samizdat" up to his arrest.

A number of scientists wrote protest letters in support of KOVALEV im¬
mediately after his arrest. Mathematician GOL'FAHD released a statement
in vhich he expressed his conviction that the reason KOVALEV vas accused
of collaboration vith the Chrodicle of the Lithuanian Catholic r^rch vas
to enable the authorities to move KOVALEV's trial out of Moscow to Vil'-
nyus, away from his friends and foreign Journalists. 131 GOL'FABD vouched
for KOVALEV's high moral convictions, stating that KOVALEV had personally
helped a number of political prisoners and their families, as veil as re¬
ligious believers, and he called for a world-wide defense of KOVALEV.
SAKhABOV wrote a letter on 28 December appealing for an international
campaign for KOVALEV's release, 132 On 30 December the Initiative Group
and fifty-two supporters released a statement in support of KOVALEV; of

people sisoiag the document, twenty-five were scientists. 133
KOVALEV was tried 9-12 December 1975 and received a sentence of seven years
confinement and three years exile.134 KOVALEV’s later persecution in pri¬
son, in 1976, was met by a protest from twenty-two people, eighteen of
whom were scientists, who called on all biologists of the world to with¬
hold scientific contacts vith the USSR until KOVALEV's release.135

On 18 April 1975 TVERDOKhLEBOV vas arrested, after having been sub¬
jected to tvo searches and four interrogations from 27 November to 25
December 1974.136 on the seme day of TVERDOKhLEBOV’s arrest the apart¬
ments of two other Amnesty International members, TURChIR, the
of the Soviet Section, and AL'BREKhT, were searched and documents con¬
nected vith the activities of the group confiscated. 137 Protesting
TVERDOKhLEBOV 's arrest in several letters were twenty individuals, ten of
whom were scientists. 138 Additionally, TVERDOKhLEBOV, a Russian Ortho¬
dox, was denied the right to confess to a priest while in prison await¬
ing his trial. This was protested by fellow Christian AL'BREKhT in a
letter to Moscov Patriarch Pimen on 10 November 1975,139 ChALIDZE

25

considered TVERDOKhLEBQV the last representative of the "analytical
school" in the huaan rights moveaent still living in the USSR (after
the emigration of TsUXERMAN , VOL' PIN and himself) , and he sav TVERDOKh-
LEBOV's arrest as confirmation that the Soviet authorities regarded TVEF.-
DOKhLEBCV's apolitical studies of the Soviet judicial system as being
no less dangerous than loud protests. 1^0 TVERDOKfaLEBOY vas sentenced to
five years exile on 16 April 1976, but, since his year in prison countea
as three in exile, he remained in exile only until 1978, after which he
apparently resumed his functions as secretary of the Soviet Section of
Amnesty International. 1^1

In June 1975 SAKhAROV released his third major essay, "Concerning the
Country and the World," vhicn, in its pessimistic view of the future of
the USSR and world peace, reflected SAKhAROV’ s discouragement after the
massive persecutions of dissidents by Soviet authorities in the previous
several years. 1^2 SAKhAROV expressed distrust of the Soviet compliance
with arms control agreements and called on increased Western pressure to
keep the USSR from gaining the upper hand in world politics. This essay,
together with the Nobel Conmittee's awarding SAKhAROV the Nobel Peace
Prize on 9 October 1975, evoked another wave of condemnation of SAKhAROV
from establishment scientists. 1^3 On 25 October seventy-two members of
the USSR Academy of Sciences, less than one third of the total. Including
ENGEL 'GARDT and, inexplicably, KAPITsA, released a statement in which they
protested the Nobel Committee's action. Writer L. Kopelov, a former pri¬
son camp comrade of Solzhenitsyn's, condemned the academicians' move, as¬
serting that the most they would have risxed by not signing the statement
would have been the temporary displeasure of the authorities and a momen¬
tary setback in their careers. lW» Kopelev maintained that these academi¬
cians vould suffer on account of their decision through the hatred of
their contemporaries and followers, not to mention through the weight of
their own consciences: "The most eloquent necrologies and the most luxu¬
rious gravestones do not counterbalance the shameful weight of signing."

On 12 May 1976 a group called the "Public Group to Assist in the Ob¬
servance of the Helsinki Accords in the USSR," also known as the Moscow
Helsinki Monitoring Group, was established by twelve people, four of whom
including the chairman, were scientists: ORLOV (chairman), KORChAK, LAN-
DA, and ShchARANSKIY.1^5 The group, as its title indicates, watched for
violations of the Helsinki Accords and reported them. In the period from
November 1976 to April 1977 another four Helsinki monitoring groups were
formed and were located, respectively, in the Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia,
and Armenia. 1^6 Five of the twenty-two founding members of these groups
were scientists: STROKATAYa, FINKEL ’ ShTEYN , G. GOLDShTEYN, I. GOLDShTEYN ,
and NAZAR YaN .

At some point prior to mid July 1976, twenty-four Soviet scholars, all
but one of wnom were scientists, signed an open letter to the President
of the USSR Academy of Sciences, A.P, Aleksandrov, and Chairman of tne
State Committee on Science and Technology, V.A. Kirillin, in which they
addressed the problem of the violation of Soviet scholars' civil and pro¬
fessional rights. 1^7 The scholars, while admitting that the persecution
was not as bad as it had been under Stalin, cited the restrictions on pub-
lisning research papers, attending professional meetings, and traveling
abroad as detrimental to the development of contemporary science. They

2b

further stated that scholars had a responsibility far exceeding their
own professional and personal affairs, that of defending human rights.

In a sense, these scientists were attempting to Justify tne leading
role of the scientist in dissidence by claiming that a scientist-schol¬
ar was obliged to advocate human rights issues.

Physicist ZAKS, who was TVERDOKhLEBOV's step-sister and ShUSTER's wife,
attempted to engage a lawyer in Moscow in late September 197b to defend
Pavel Ye. Bashkirov, who had been persecuted for friendship with leading
dissidents. Ib3 Bashkirov had been deprived of the right to chose his own
counsel for his forthcoming trial. This illegal interference on the part
of the authorities with Bashkirov's right to counsel was protested in a
letter to the Minister of Justice of the RSFSR which was signed by eight
individuals, four of whoa were scientists. 1^9 Eventually, ZAKS was able
to have the lawyer earlier selected by Bashkirov's relatives reinstated.

On 25 November 197b a concert to be held at the club of the Institute
of Atomic Energy in Moscow vas cancelled because of the proposed partici¬
pation of, among others, songwriter and physicist MIRZAYaN.150 His con¬
certs at the Moscow Physico-Technical Institute and the Architecture In¬
stitute, scheduled for November and December 197b, were also cancelled.
MIRZAYaN had been questioned in May by Party officials concerning his
participation in the so-called "Vskresen'ye" (Sunday) concerts, which
were unofficial concerts held in the outlying areas of Moscow in 197b. 151
He was accused of being one of the organizers.

The publication of the humaxv rights document, "Charter 77," by 257
Czechoslovak intellectuals in January 1977 was hailed and firmly sup¬
ported by sixty-two Soviet citizens, twenty-five of whom were scientists,
on 12 February 1977.152 "Charter 77," which called for the humanization
of society through the implementation of constitutional rights, was
written originally in an attempt to urge official compliance with the hu¬
man rights provisions of the Helsinki Accords, but became the symbol for
liberalization in the Soviet bloc. Perhaps the most significant aspect
of this document vas that it came not from the West but from a socialist
state; hence, it was more troublesome ideologically for Soviet authorities
to combat. The thought that dissident intellectuals from various social¬
ist countries could arrive at common positions and provide mutual support
vas also, no doubt, disconcerting and troublesome for the Soviet leaders.

The arrest of writer and founding member of the Helsinki Monitoring
Group, A. Ginzburg, on 3 February 1977 was met by a protest from Soviet
citizens which nearly matched the protest of his trial in 19b8. A pro¬
test letter, signed by 325 individuals, sixty-eight of whom were scien¬
tists, vas released the day after Ginzburg's arrest. 153 The letter call¬
ed on the leaders of the countries adhering to the Helsinki Accords to
recognize Ginzburg's arrest as an attack on a member of the Helsinki
Monitoring Group and to realize that his arrest evidenced the existence
of a political and social climate in the USSR which would have serious
international consequences. Ginzburg vas sentenced to eight years con¬
finement and five years exile in July 1978. He was released, however,
on 27 April 1979, in a prisoner exchange between the US and USSR.

On 10 February 1977 ORLOV vas arrested after several searches of his

27

apartment, during which a number of "samizdat" documents were confiscat¬
ed.^ ORLOV's arrest, which came just three days after fellow Helsinki
Monitoring Group member MEYuK’s apartment was searched and seven days af¬
ter Ginzburg's arrest, clearly indicated that the authorities had made
the decision to eliminate the group altogether. ORLOV had been at odas
with official policy in the USSR since 1956, when he and a group' of col¬
leagues presented a program for democratic reforms in the Party and the
state. 15$ This occurred at a Party meeting at the Institute of Theoret¬
ical and Experimental Physics in Moscow and resulted in his expulsion
from both the Farty and the Institute. He was unable to find work in
Moscow after that and finally moved to Yerevan, where he was elected a
Corresponding Member of the Armenian Academy of Sciences. In 1972 ORLOV
returned to Moscow and began working at the Institute of Terrestrial
Magnetism and Propagation of Radio Waves, located in the Krasnaya Fakhra
Science City Just south of Moscow. He was fired from that institute in
1973 for his letter to Brezhnev on the reasons for the backwardness of
the USSR (see above). Less than three weeks after his letter to Brezhnev
ORLOV became a founding member of the Soviet Section of Amnesty Interna¬
tional. He was unable, however to find any regular work after his dis¬
missal from the Institute.

ORLOV's arrest was followed by a number of interrogations and other
tactics designed to frighten off his prospective supporters; some of the
scientists interrogated were GOL'FAND, LANDA, LAVUT, GASTEV, KORChAK and
AL'BREKhT.15o Physicist BARABANOV was offered a chance to denounce ORLOV's
political views in order to get promoted; he refused. 157 Corresponding
Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences L.B. Okun' was brought before the
director of the Institute of Th’eoretical and Experimental Physics, the
secretary of the Party bureau and an "unknown person" and asked if he was
planning to speak out on ORLOV's behalf .158 He replied that he was not.
ORLOV's trial was held 15-18 May 1978 and he received the maximum sentence
for the charge of anti-Soviet propaganda and agitation: Seven years con¬
finement and five years exile. Protesting his sentence were fourteen sci¬
entists. 159

On W March 1977 mathematician and Helsinki Monitoring Group founding
member ShchARANSKIY and cyberneticist LERNER were accused of espionage
and collaboration with the CIA in an open letter to the Presidium of the
USSR Supreme Soviet, the United Nations, and the US Congress by ShchARAN-
SKIY's former roomate S.L. Lipavskiy .160 ShchARANSKIY was arrested 15
March 1977 after a search of his apartment five days earlier. l6l A num¬
ber of scientists were interrogated after ShchARAH SKIY ' s arrest, includ¬
ing FAYN, ULANOVSKIY, LEVlCh, BRAILOVSKIY, AL’BREKhT, I. BEYLIN, KISLIK,
and FINDEL'ShTEYN.l62 ShchARANSKIY, who had applied for emigration in
1973 but was turned down for security reasons, had been active in both
the Jewish emigration and the human rights movement. ShchARANSKIY, in
fact, vas a leading spoaesman for both movements because of his command
of English and his contacts with foreign Journalists.

In June 1977 ShchARANSKIY ' s previous contacts with foreign Journalists
proved a major problem for his defense in court, for he was linked to al¬
leged espionage conducted by US nevs correspondent Robert Toth. Toth vas
detained by the KGB or lU June 1977 for allegedly receiving secret infor¬
mation on parapsychology from biologist PETUKhOV on 11 June. 163 Toth

28

claimed that he had heard about PETUKhOV from a Soviet scientist then
living in Israel and that several months earlier ShchARARSKIY had in¬
formed Toth that PETUKhOV wanted to meet with him. When PETUKhOV final¬
ly did meet with Toth, the former asked for Toth’s assistance in getting
his research published in the US. Immediately after PETUKhOV handed
Toth the materials Toth was picked up and interrogated. On 1U June Toth
was questioned for four hours , primarily about PETUKhOV and parapsychol¬
ogy. On the next day though, Toth was informed that he was now testify¬
ing as a witness, and the questions primarily concerned ShchARABSKIY ,
who, at Toth's own admission, had assisted him in assembling information
on Soviet developments in science on several occasions. It is not clear
whether PETUKhOV was working for the KGB when he offered Toth the materi¬
als. It does seem clear, however, that the incident was not initially
an attempt by the authorities to incriminate ShehARAHSKIY, for Toth was
questioned on ShehARAHSKIY on the second, not the first, day of interro¬
gation. It seesis more likely that Toth was constantly under surveillance,
that it was for this reason that he was picked up so quickly after being
handed the "secret" material, and that the authorities learned of the
Toth-PETUKhOV-ShchARAHSKIY connection in the course of their investiga¬
tion and decided then to exploit it.

Also in June 1977 twelve former students and teachers at ShehARAHSKIY' s
alma mater, Moscow Physlco-Technlcal Institute, released an appeal to
"Professors, Teachers and Students of all the World's Universities" for
support of ShehARAHSKIY . l6U The twelve asserted that ShehARAHSKIY did
not have access to secret material while at the institute (which was
the reason given for refusing visa application in 1973) and that he
bad never done anything which could be construed as being inimical to the
interests of the Soviet government or Soviet society. Despite this and
other pleas in his defense, ShchABABSKIY was tried 10-lk July 1978 and
found guilty of treason, for which he received thirteen years confine¬
ment. lo5

In June 1977 an American tourist was found with an article on nuclear
physics in his possession, written by chemist KISLIK, who had been re¬
fused emigration on security grounds in 1973.^6 in September 1977 KIS¬
LIK was threatened with the possibility of arrest, KISLIK was also an
activist for the Jewish emigration movement and one of the organizers of
the engineering symposium conducted in Kiev throughout 1975 • Ten Jewish
scientists came to KISLIK' s defense in late 1977 with an appeal to West¬
ern scientific societies in which they stated their conviction that the
persecution of KISLIK was an attempt by the authorities to completely
crush all forms of scientific activity by Jewish scientists who had ap¬
plied for emigration, including publication, scientific contacts, and
seminars. 187 It might be that the special nighttime guard duty initiated
at the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences' Institutes in Kiev in October 1977I08
had some relationship to KISLIK ' s case, possibly to prevent the unauthor¬
ized use of copying machines or other activities in his support.

Further attempts of the authorities to curtail the activities of tne
Helsinki monitoring groups led to the arrest of a member of the Georz^aa
group, physicist G. GOL'DShTEYH, on 17 January 1978 for "parasitism"i°9
and the arrest of a member of the Armenian group, physicist NAZARYaN, on
22 December 1977 for anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda. 17° NAZARYaN

was arrested after a sixteen-hour search of his apartment turned up num¬
erous "samizdat" materials. GOL ' DSnTEYN was arrested for refusing to
accept Jobs offered him by state agencies, preferring to live instead on
money he earned tutoring. GOL'DShTEYN had been refused an emigration
visa in 1971 on the grounds of access to secret information and had later
renounced his Soviet citizenship. He held no permanent Jobs after that
time. He defended his refusal to work as being motivated by the desire
to stay clear of all researco which could be construed as "classified,"
which would extend the period of time he would have to wait before emi¬
grating. GOL'DShTEYN was tried 20 March 1978 and was sentenced to one
year confinement, the maximum sentence for "parasitism." NAZARYaH, who
had not been brought to trial by late 1973, had enrolled in a seminary
immediately after graduating from Yerevan University and eventually re¬
ceived the position of deacon. 172 He served in the church for a short
period of time and left to resume his work as a physicist, reportedly
after a conflict with the church hierarchy. NAZARYaN became one of the
tnree founding members of the Armenian Helsinki Monitoring Group in April
1977.

The final historical event to be discussed in this chapter involves,
fittingly but purely by chance, SAKhAROV, beyond question the most impor¬
tant Soviet dissident scientist and probably the most important Soviet
dissident. On 19 July 1978 SAKhAROV was suamoned to the head scientific
secretary of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences and was infor¬
med that his (SAKhAROV' s) actions during ORLOV's trial (in May 1978) were
considered impends sable and undermined the prestige of Soviet scientists. 173
The secretary indicated that he was carrying out the instructions of a re¬
solution passed by the Presidium on the basis of USSR Academy of Sciences
President Aleksandrov's report ’on SAKhAROV. SAKhAROV had struck a person
apparently acting in an official capacity outside of ORLOV's court room
who had hit his wife. At the time, SAKhAROV and his wife were trying to
attend ORLOV's trial. SAKhAROV defended his actions, in this particular
instance and in the human rights movement in general, before the secre¬
tary, daring the secretary to expell him from the Academy. SAKhAROV em¬
phasized that as long as he vas a member of the Academy, he expected to
be treated as one. There was not much else the secretary could do or
say: SAKhAROV had emerged unscathed again.

30

Conclusions

Vvn&t are some o? the conclusions what can be reached from tne nistori-
cai development of dissider.ce in the scientific community, as presented
in this cnapter? First of all, there has been a gradual but steady po¬
grom of dissident scientists nolaing leadership positions, particularly
since 1971*. Coincident with the arrests of tue leaders, other less *.novn
but nevertheless active dissident scientists have been subjected to inter¬
rogations and apartment searches and threatened vith arrest if they con¬
tinued their activities. As a result of this repression, by i973 tuere
vere very few dissident scientists of international stature and repute
left in tne dissident movement, and the activities of many of the dissi¬
dent groups suffered for lack of leadersnip.

Another conclusion that could be reached is that the mass persecution of
the scientists vho signed tne i960 protest letters was a successful move
on the part of the government. The persecutions probably kept a number of
scientists away from the dissident movement completely vho might have been
in agreement vith post-19b6 dissident activities and issues, and very few
of the scientists vho signed the 19o3 protest letters appeared again in
dissident activities. It cannot be said, hovever, that tneir dissatisfac¬
tion vith the Soviet system vas eliminated after the repression. It is
more likely that their tactics simply cnanged from external to internal
dissent. It is not unlikely, in fact, that, given an issue of extreme im¬
portance or a politically-relaxed atmosphere, these "internal dissidents"
might re-emerge.

The conclusions must be, then, a relatively sober one: there vere few
scientists left in a dissident movement which vas itself apparently declin¬
ing for lack of leadership and excess of repression. There was, hovever,
one major source of continuity, the organized dissident groups, which had
been created during the period 1969-76, in many cases by dissident scien¬
tists. These groups, although deprived of membership tnrougn arrests, emi¬
gration and persecution, at least theoretically were capable of continuing
the work begun in the late lybG's and early 1970's in the areas of, inter
alia, human rights, religious freedom, and the right to emigrate. All that
vas needed vas leadership. A number of tnese dissident groups will be ais-
cussed in the following chapter, for it is these groups which will probably
remain as rallying points for dissidents in tne USSR in the future.

31

CHAPTER II

Penfield, in his 1973 work, presents a good overview of all the
dissident groups then extant in the Soviet dissident movement. The
reader is referred to that work for a more comprehensive look at dissi¬
dent groups. In this chapter, only those groups in which scientists
held leadership positions or were active members will be discussed; al¬
though admittedly, few groups were without scientists. The -e are five
categories of groups that will be described and analyzed in this chap¬
ter, three of which are concerned with formal groups, two of which are
concerned with informal groupings. Because the 1977 Soviet Constitution
requires that all organizations in the USSR be under the guidance of the
Communist Party (Article 126), it is clear that dissidents belonging to
the formal groups were in violation of the law, at least after 1977. The
formal groups to be analyzed in this chapter are of the democratic/ hu¬
man rights type, the ethnic /religious type, and the revolutionary /crimi¬
nal type. The informal groupings to be examined are the scientific /pro¬
fessional and the social elite.

32

1. Democratic /Hua an Rights Groups

The democratic /human rights groups hare been in existence since 1969,
a year which, in retrospect, was a turning point in Soviet aissidence, a
shift away from loosely-organized collective protest letters to organized
groups. It could be suggested that the reason for this shift was to en¬
sure the safety of those relatively few dissidents who continued to dis¬
sent after 1968: by achieving Western notoriety and public support the
groups might have attained semi-official recognition which allowed them
to exist, albeit for short periods of time.

There have been seven human rights groups in the USSR, all of whom
have had scientists as active members. It is important to note that ell
of these groups were considered "legal” by their members. Hone demanded
an end to Communist Party rule or a transformation of the USSR into a
bourgeois democracy; rather, the groups demanded the unbiased observance
of Soviet law. In keeping with their "legal" status, the methods of the
groups were not overtly subversive or illegal: legal demonstrations,
letters to Soviet and foreign officials and organizations, news confer¬
ences, and publication and distribution of "Samizdat," which they refused
to admit was illegal. The immediate goal of these groups was to gain
publicity, both in the USSR and in the West, of Soviet infractions of
Soviet laws, and it was assumed that public opinion would force the USSR
to fulfill its legal obligations. All of these groups were Western ori¬
ented: they all needed the moral and political support of the West to
survive and exert pressure on ttie Soviet authorities.

A. The Initiative Group for Defense of Human Rights in the USSR

The first of the human rights groups in the USSR, the Initiative Group
for Defense of Human Rights in the USSR (Initiative Group), was founded
in May 1969 with fifteen members, five of whom were scientists: T. VELI¬
KANOVA, KOVALEV, LAVUT, PLYuShcn, and ?CDr,Ya?OL'SKIY.l The group's pri¬
mary role has been the collection and dissemination of data on violations
of human rights in the USSR; these violations have been reported both to
international and to Soviet authorities. The Initiative Group has made
no overtly political statements and has no program, rules, or organiza¬
tional structure. There were no formal ties, in fact, linking tne mem¬
bers, who were both Communist and non-Communist, religious and non-rali-
giou3, but they did share the conviction that the rights of the individ¬
ual had to be preserved in any society. They were also committed to
working in the open in a clearly legal manner.

The impetus for forming this group was the arrest of dissidents Grig-
orenko and Gabay in 1969.^ For the first six months of its existence,
the Initiative Group directed all its letters to the United Nations, see¬
ing it as tne most representative body called upon to defend universal
interests: "Human rights in any country - is a matter the sane for all

33

people, regardless of nationality and state boundaries. "3 The group be¬
lieved that the Soviet leadership listened to Western public opinion,
and. for this reason sent their letters abroad. When, however, the UN
failed to respond, the Initiative Group turned to other international
organizations and to Soviet authorities. The group only considered hu¬
man rights violations in the USSR, despite calls for them to widen
their scope. The group responded to such calls by stating that the USSR,
by its international posture, prompted violations of human rights in oth¬
er countries, and that, if the USSR's violations were to be curtailed,
the other countries would change for the better.

Of the fifteen members, six were arrested within one year. One docu¬
ment signed in 1970 listed only eight members, among whom were all five
scientists.1* By 1975 only three members were left to sign the group's
lette^, including scientists P0D"YaP0L'SKIY and T. VELIKANOVA. 5 In
1976 only T. VELIKANOVA and Kbodorovich remained, 6 and in 1977 Khodoro-
vich emigrated, leaving T. VELIKANOVA the sole representative of the
grout). Other scientists who have supported the Initiative Group at one
time* or another are LAND A, TIMAChEV, VOL 'PIN, GAYDUKOV, DZhEMILEV, KAP¬
LAN, MYuGE, PONOMAREV, ROKITYaNSKIY , RUDAKOV, BELOGORODSKAYa, DIKOV,
MILAShEVICH and KOSTERINA.

B. The Human Rights Committee

The Human Rights Committee was formed k November 1970 by three physi¬
cists, SAKHAROV, ChALIDZE, and TVERDOKhLEBOV . 7 The principles of the
Committee firmly stated that the group would not be political and that
the members would not strive for any political positions. Its goals were
to create favorable living conditions, to strengthen peace, and to devel¬
op mutual understanding, all through the medium of the guarantee of hu¬
man rights. Some of the functions of this group were: consultations
with governmental authorities on human rights, research assistance on tne
theoretical aspects of human rights in a socialist society, legal assist¬
ance, and the dissemination of human rights information found in Inter¬
national and Soviet law. The Committee expressed its readiness to estab¬
lish contacts with social and academic organizations as long as or_
ganizations were not guided by the desire to harm the USSR.” The Human
Rights Committee rarely signed protest letters or took part in other dis¬
sident activities, but proceedings of its meetings were published in
"Samizdat," much of it in ChALIDZE 's journal Obshchestvennyye problemy
(Public Problems). 9

In June 1971 the Committee became affiliated with the International
League for the Rights of Man (New York), 10 and in August 1971 with the
International Institute on Human Rignts (Strasbourg) ,11 The Committee
elected two other scientists, mathematician VOL'PIN and physicist TsJiC-
ERMAN, as "experts" of the group.12 ChALIDZE left the group in 1972
ucon his emigration and was replaced by mathematician ShAFAREVICh.13
After TVERDOKhLEBOV resigned in 1972, geophysicist P0D"YaP0L'SKIY be¬
came a member. I1* The emigration of ChALIDZE, VOL'PIN, and TsUiCnRHAN,

3l*

the arrest of TVZRDOKhLZBOV , and the death of ?OD"Ya?QL'SKIY left only
SAKhAr.CV and ShAFAPEVTCh in the group after 1976, and the Committee as
suon has done little since that time.

C. Group-7 3/Soviet Section of Amnesty International

Group-73 vas founded 1 September 1973 as a benevolent society to help
political _prisoners and their families, taking Amnesty International as
a model. The founding members of the group were TVERLOKhLEBOV , math¬
ematician AL'BRZKhT, V. Arkhangel ' skiy and Korneyev. The group resolved
to assist political prisoners regardless of political orientation, race,
nationality, class, or religion, and to provide consultation. TVERDOKh-
LEBOV apparently vas the guiding light behind this group, as he had pub¬
lished since early 1973 a "Samizdat" journal, Amnesty International, and
had incorporated its ideas into tne group.

On b October 1973 this group, expanded to eleven members, applied for
membership in Amnesty International and became known as the Soviet Section
of Amnesty International. ^ The executive group of the section vas com¬
posed of physicists TURChIN (Chairman), TVERDOKhLEBOV (Secretary), 3EL00-
ZLROV and mathematician AL'BREhhT. Of the remaining seven members, three
were scientists: ORLOV, ORLOVSKIY and KOVALEV. The executive group vas
to meet no less than once every* two months, and a general meeting of the
section vas to meet no less than once a year. KOVALEV ana TVERDOKhLEBOV
were arrested, according to SAKhARO V, because the authorities wanted to
demonstrate their opposition to the existence of such an organization,
particularly because of its international ties and tight structure.

When TURChlil emigrated in 1977, the position of chairman vas assumed by
AL'BRZKhT.19

The Soviet Section committed itself to fight for tne release of pris¬
oners vnose rights had been violated, despite their political beliefs,
and took upon itself the protection of three prisoners, one from the
East European countries, one from the West, and one from the Third Worla.
The group was not allowed to monitor prisoners from the USSR in the in¬
terests of political objectivity. It is interesting to note that soae
Western sections of Amnesty International protested the fact that Soviet
dissidents headed the Soviet Section, claiming that they were not objec¬
tive and impartial because of their situation. 20 it is not known vnom
the Western sections preferred.

D. Public Group to Assist in tne Observance of tne Helsinki Accor Is
in che USSR

This -roup, also known as tne Helsinki monitoring Group, vas formed in
Moscow on ±2 May 1976 by eleven individuals, four of vnom vers scientists:

35

ORLOV (Chairman), KORChAK, LAHDA, and ShchARANSKIY . 21 Of the seven
members added later to the group, three were scientists: MNYuK, KEY-
KAH, and P0LIKAK0V.22 The group was founded at the initiative of OR¬
LOV to monitor the observance of the humanitarian articles (Basket 5)
of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe
(CSCE), signed 22 July 1975.23 On 15 May 1976, ORLOV vas picked up and.
taken to the KGB, where he vas varned that his activity vas in violation
of the Constitution and hindered the process of detente. With ORLOV's
and ShchARANSKIY * s arrests in 1977 and MKYuK's and POLIKANOV ' s emigra¬
tion, the only scientists left in the group after 1977 were MEYMAN, LAM-
DA, and KORChAK.

The main task of the Helsinki Monitoring Group vas to supply informa¬
tion on violations of the articles to the heads of the governments which
signed the Final Act and to the people of those countries. 2h The group
proceeded from the conviction that human rights had a direct relationship
to the problem of international security, and the group called upon peo¬
ple from the other co-signing nations to set up similar national monitor¬
ing groups. To gather this information the group offered to accept di¬
rectly from Soviet citizens complaints on violations. In cases of ex-*
tremely inhumane acts, such as removing children from religious parents,
forced psychiatric treatment and separation of families, the group pro¬
posed to turn to the heads of the governments as veil as the people vith
a request that an international commission be established to check out
the information at its source* The group hoped that its information
vould be considered at all offical meetings vhich were scheduled in the
Final Act. 25

In Autumn 1976, the Moscov-based Helsinki Monitoring Group called for
the national republics to form their own monitoring groups. 26 A Ukrain¬
ian group vas established on 9 November 1976,27 and vas followed by the
establishement of Lithuanian, 28 Georgian29 and Armenian30 groups on 25
November 1976, January 1977, and 1 April 1977, respectively. The par¬
ticipation of scientists in each of these groups vas significant. One
of the nine founding members of the Ukrainian group, STROKATAYa, one of
the five founding members of the Lithuanian group, FUfKELShTEYN, two of
the three founding members of the Georgian group, G GOLDShTEYN and I.
GOLDShTEYN, and one of the three founding members of the Armenian group,
NAZARYaN, were scientists. The goal of these groups vas to document
specific violations of human rights in their respective areas, althougn
certain nationalist vievs entered into the charters of the groups vhich
only peripherally could have been regarded as defense of human rights.

In the Ukrainian group, for example, the declaration of the aims of the
group included the goal "to strive for accreditation in the Ukraine of
foreign press correspondents and representatives, for the formation of
an independent nevs agency and for other measures towards the promotion
of the free flow of information and ideas," and to have the Ukraine made
"a sovereign European nation and a member of the UN, to be represented
by its own delegation at all international conferences the implemen¬
tation of the Helsinki Accords. "31 Similarly, the Lithuanian group in¬
cluded a reminder that the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic vas es¬
tablished as the result of Soviet occupation in 19^0.32 The goals of the
Armenian group included Armenian membership in the UN and the reunifica¬
tion of a part of Azerbaidzhan with Armenia. 33

36

Mi-- .H. (ttijMrtriiitffTirraMfc * <

2. The Working Commission to Investigate Misuse of Psychiatry for
Political Purposes

This Commission was formed on 5 January 1977 under the auspices of the
Moscow Helsinki Monitoring. Croup, and one of its five founding members
was mathematician BAjChMIN.31* The activity of this group consisted of
writing letters to Soviet organizations, psychiatric hospitals and for¬
eign phychiatric associations about the misuse of psychiatry in the USSR.
The group published a "Samizdat" newsletter, "Information Bulletin,"
starting in June 1977. By Summer 1978, through a process of imprison¬
ment and harrassment, only BAKhMIN was left of the original five members
to continue the vork of the commission.

F. Armenian Political Prisoner Fund

Physicist NAZARYaN organized the fund to collect donations for four¬
teen Armenian prisoners and their families in February 1976.35 The pris¬
oners had been sentenced in nine political trials in Yerevan from 1973
to 197U, and NAZARYaN, indicating that he was acting in accordance witn
the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as
with the Final Act of the CSCE* stated that it was the obligation of
one's conscience to do this. He appealed to all Armenians in the world
to support the fund, saying that the political views of the political
prisoners should not play a role in the decision to support them, tnat
tne issue was a moral one, and should be supported by all good Armenians.

G. The Russian Public Fund to Aid Political Prisoners

This fund was established by Solzhenitsyn shortly after his forced
emigration to the Wes z in 197 and was managed by Ginzburg until the
latter's arrest in February 1977.3® The fund provided food and clothing
to political prisoners, exiles, people hospitalized for political reasons,
and to defendents awaiting trial. The fund also gave financial assistance
to recently-released political prisoners and to the families of political
prisoners to enable them to visit the prisoners and support themselves.

The fund administrators maintained lists of political prisoners eligible
for such aid, and among those scientists helped by the fund were ORLOV,
ShchARANSKIY , DAVYOV and KAMPOV. After Ginzburg's arrest the management
of the fund vas turned over to Khodorovich, who was assisted in this by
scientists LANDA and LYuBARSKIY . 37 After LYuBARSKIY's and Khodorovica's
emigration in 1977, LANDA vas left vith the primary responsibility for
administering the fund.

37

2. Religious /Ethnic Groups

This section deals vith dissident groups which represent religious or
ethnic interests. In most cases the ethnic groups were loosely organ¬
ized and had spokesmen rather than leaders to present demands to Soviet
authorities and information to Western nevsmen. The religious dissident
groups, on the other hand, were more tightly structured and had definite
leaders. Scientists participated in significant numbers in only tvo
ethnic groups and tvo religious groups, as far as could be determined.

The fact that the main "Samizdat" sources used for this paper were Moscow
based, Russian and secular might be the reason that more information was
not found on such large religious /ethnic movements as the Ukrainian, Bap¬
tist, Pentecostal, Lithuanian Catholic, Meskhi-Turk, Georgian and etnnic
German movements.

A. The Jevish Dissident Movement

The Jevish movement is the most significant, in terms of international
support and numerical strength, of all the religious /ethnic dissident
groups. The movement is vastly different from most of the others, though,
in that its main goal was the free emigration of Soviet citizens of Jev-
isn ethnic background to Israel, i.e., not to change the Soviet system
but to abandon it. The Jevish movement is also unique in that the USSR
has partially acceded to this goal, albeit inconsistently and belatedly,
Jevish dissident scientists are subjected to more harrassment and admin¬
istrative malice on the part of Soviet authorities than any other dissi¬
dent group. The Jevish scientist is automatically removed from his Job
upon his request for emigration, regardless of vhether his request is ac¬
cepted. Jevs are also liable for military call-up after their request
for emigration, which further prolongs the period of time they must spend
in the USSR without their regular Jobs. To protest their treatment, Jev¬
ish dissidents have taken such measures as hunger strikes, news confer¬
ences, sit-down protests, demonstrations, and, particularly for scien¬
tists of Jevish background, international scientific symposia not offici¬
ally authorized.

The starting point of the organized Jevish emigration movement could
be considered the 1970-71 trials of nearly thirty Jevs accused of the ip
June 1970 attempted hijacking at Leningrad's Smolnoye Airport. 3° Nearly
tvo hundred people were arrested in Riga, Odessa, Khar'kov, Kishinev, Kiev
and Leningrad after the attempt, and the first trial was held 15-2? Decem¬
ber 1970. Tvo of those convicted at tne trial received death sentences,
later commuted to prison terms in the wake of the intense Western and So¬
viet dissident protest. 39 The protest united the non-Jevish Soviet dissi¬
dent movement and tnose Jevs avaiting emigration, 0 and as sucn gave tne
Jevs a sense of community and a specific issue around vnich tney could u-
nite.

Jewish scientists, except for those in physics and electronics, were
allowed to emigrate with relatively little harrassment from the Fall of
1971 until the Spring of 1972.^1 After 1S72, however, the emigration of
specialists was sharply curtailed, first, by the imposition of an emi¬
gration tax allegedly to pay the state back for educational expenses, ^2
and later, after the abolishment of the tax in 1973, by purported se¬
curity considerations. The emigration of all Jews was low from 1974
to 1977, because of official harrassment and rejection of prospective
emigrants. Only in 1978 did the Soviets again allow emigration on a pre-
1974 scale (30,000 per year). 3 in fact, if emigration were to continue
in tae sefcond half of 1979 as it did in tne first half, the emigration of
Jews would be well over 30,000 for the year. 44 Thus, it seem3 that emi¬
gration is getting easier for Jews in general, but it is too early to
determine whether Jewish scientists will also share in this.

As mentioned above, one way the Soviet authorities dealt with prospec¬
tive Jewish emigrants was to call them up for military service upon their
requests for emigration. This happened to a number of Jewish scientists,
including BOYKO, Ye. LEVICh, M. AZBEL ' , AYNBINDER, GURVITs, VORONEL', R0-
GIIISKIY, YaKhOT, FIIJKELShTEYN and ShEPELEV.^5 After their tour of duty
the Soviet authorities could "legally" refuse their emigration requests,
for a military security clearance prohibited emigration for seven years
after access to the appropriate material and equipment.^ The call-up was
also used to remove Jewish activists from Moscow during President Nixon's
visit in 1972, when a number of them received notices to report to "train¬
ing camps. "47 SAKhAROV saw this kind of action as an attempt to frighten
people who wanted to emigrate. 46

Jewish scientists were able to maintain some semblance of scientific
activity after the perfunctory firings following their requests for emi¬
gration. The scientists organized and conducted scientific seminars at
each other's apartments, inviting even foreign scientists to participate.
The best known of these seminars were those organized by Moscow physicists
VORONEL ' , M. AZBEL' and ROZENShTEYN, and Kiev physicist KISLIK.

VORONEL' held weekly Sunday physics seminars at his apartment in Mos¬
cow from 1972 to 1974. 9 The goal of these seminars was to keep abreast
of the latest scientific research and to exchange competent evaluations
of each other's scientific work. VQR0NEL' planned an international semi¬
nar for July 1974, but the KGB arrested and confined him, M. AZBEL' and
BRAILOVSKIY on 25 June for fifteen days to prevent the seminar from oe-
ing held. 50 None of the foreign scientists vas given a visa and the KGB
placed all the other members of the seminar under surveillance. 51 Scien¬
tists who had participated in V0R0NEL' s seminars included AGURSKIY, M.
AZBEL', I. BRAILOVSKAYa, BRAILOVSKIY, LUNTs, LERNER, MIKULINSKIY, RAM,
GURFEL' , ShEPELEV, KhAIT, ShchARANSKIY, FINKELShTEYN , BUYKO, ROZENShTEYN,
VAYNER, YaKIR and GERBER. 52 ia the fall of 1974, the members of the semi¬
nar were subjected to a great deal of persecution, including accusati ms
of parasitism, cutting off the postal service, and surveillance. Finally,
on o October 1974, VORONEL 's apartment was locked by the police and the
members were ordered to disperse. 53 They went to BRAILOVSKIY'S apartment
instead and held the seminar there. It is not known what happened the
following week, but the seminar did continue.

39

M, AZBEL ' took over responsibility for VORONEL ’ s seminar after the
latter emigrated in late 157U.51* The seminar continued to meet on a
regular basis until 26 May 1975 , when AZBEL' was called into the KGB and
told that the scientific seminar vas considered a Zionist garnering
whose goal vas anti-Soviet propaganda, i.e., a criminal offense. 55 AZBEL'
was tola that if he did not cease this activity, he would be liable for
criminal prosecution. It is clear that this threat did not stop AZBEL' ,
as on 17-20 April 1977 a scientific seminar was held in nis apartment; it
is possible that numerous others occurred between May 1975 and this date.
BRAILOVSKIY probably assumed the leadership of the seminar after AZBEL 's
emigration in 1977, for he reportedly had been holding weekly scientific
seminars with Jewish scientists prior to December 1976, when his apart¬
ment was searched and papers related to a planned international scienti¬
fic conference were confiscated. 57

Other scientific seminars were ROZENShTEYU's seminar on theoretical
biology in Moscow, which was active at least in late 1975, 56 ana KIS-
LIK's semi-weekly engineering seminar in Kiev, active in the fall of
1975.59 KISLIK's seminar was particularly persecuted by the KGB because
people other than Jewish scientists who had been refused emigration par¬
ticipated in it. KISLIK vas told by the KGB that he would be responsible
if anyone got hurt for attending the seminars .

Jewish scientists were also active in promoting Jewish culture and
history within the Jewish movement. Physicist FAYN organized a three-
day international symposium on the state and future development of Jew¬
ish culture in the USSR, scheduled for late December 1976,60 and VORO¬
NEL' and YaKhOT published a "Samizdat” Journal, Jews in the USSR, which
dealt with the history, culture and problems of Soviet Jews and appeared
from October 1972 t-o at least 1975.61 Although FAYN's symposium was
shortened to a one-day seminar after all the meabers of the organizing
committee and most of the speakers were arrested, it was an important
unifying force among Jewish dissidents. The organizing committee, inci¬
dentally, was composed of thirty Jews, eleven of whom were scientists, 62
and of the seven speakers arrested, three were scientists. 63 Among the
other particinants at the symposium were the scientists FAYeRMAN, Shch-
ARANSKIY, ULANOVSKIY, GOL’DFAND, ASKhAROV, MNYuK, B. BEYLIN, MEYMAN, GIL-
DENGORN, and ShEPELEV.6k The majority of the Jews vorking on VORONEL’ s
and YaKhOT' s "Samizdat” Journal were also scientists: M. AZBEL', BRAIL¬
OVSKIY, LUNTs, AGURSKIY, GITERMAN and FINKEL’ShTEYN.65 The Journal vas
considered a major contribution to the attempts of Soviet Jews to main¬
tain their national values.

What is the future of Soviet Jews in science? It is likely that in
the future there will be no more Jews, at least those who affirm their
ethnic background, involved in Soviet science. There seems to be an
effort to keep Jews out of the scientific departments of the universities
and institutes, particularly since 1976 in the field of mathematics. oo
There have even been allegations that mathematicians who are Jewish were
treated worse than other Jews in the USSR. It is likely that this pro¬
cess of purging Jews from science, through emigration as well as exclusion,
vill take at least a generation, so It would be very difficult to deter¬
mine its effect on Soviet science and technology at the present time. It
would not be surprising, thougn, if a lack of continuity were felt in the

1*0

next decade because of the large number of middle-level scientists who
have emigrated and will not be filling senior positions in the future.

3. The Crimean Tatar Dissident Movement

The Crimean Tatar movement has the goal of returning the Crimean Tatar
people from Central Asia, where they were deported by Stalin in 1?W* for
alleged Nazi collaboration, to the Crimea. 67 In 1967, the Crimean Tatar
people were officially rehabilitated, meaning that they were no longer
accused of treason; they were not, however, allowed to return to their
homeland. Crimean Tatars have been protesting their forced exile since
1957, by sending representatives to Moscow to talk with governmental and
Party officials and by collecting signatures for protest letters. Al¬
though there had been intermittent arrests and trials of Crimean Tatar
activists since 1959, the wave of repression began in earnest only in
1967, after the Crimean Tatars threatened to carry out mass demonstrations.
Scientists involved in the movement have included KhALILOV, DZhEMILEV,
KADYYeV, Yu. OSMANOV, S. OSMANOV, GODZhENOV, KhAIROV, and MEMETOV.

KhALILOV was one of sixty-five Crimean Tatars chosen as representatives
to present demands for repatriation to the 23rd CPSU Congress in Moscow
in 1966.68 DZhEMILEV, the leading Crimean Tatar dissident scientist, has
been involved in the movement since 1965, when he, too, was sent as a
representative of the Crimean fatar people to Moscov.69 DZhEMILEV was
also one of the twenty Crimean Tatars received by governmental officials
Andropov, Georgadze, Rudenko and Shchelokov on 21 July 1967; 70 DZhEMILEV,
moreover, incurred the wrath of the authorities by openly accusing Georg¬
adze of lying at the meeting. He was soon afterwards tried and convicted
of organizing the large demonstration of Crimean Tatars in Tashkent of 27
August 1967.71 From November 1967 to October 1968 another five scientists
were arrested for inflaming discord among the nationalities and for slan¬
dering the Soviet system: MEMETOV, Yu. OSMANOV, S. OSMANOV, KhAIROV, and
KADYYeV.

MEMETOV, Yu. OSMANOV, and S. OSMANOV were tried together in Tashkent
in 1968.72 MEMETOV was arrested on 26 November 1967 during a trip to
Tashkent, Yu. OSMANOV was arrested in January 1968, and S. OSMANOV was
arrested in February 1968. Additional information is known only about
Yu. OSMANOV, primarily because he was a prolific writer of Crimean Tat¬
ar "Samizdat." He was warned on 16 May 1967 by the procurator to stop
writing under the threat of criminal prosecution. 73 He refused, how¬
ever, stating that he was acting within the spirit of the 20th and 22nd
Party Congresses and the Party's program on the nationality question.

On 22 November 1967 he was called before the director of the Institute
of High Energy Physics and a Central Committee representative and vas
apparently reprimanded. OSMANOV had earlier been expelled from the
Joint Institute of Nuclear Research in Dubna for being a member of an
underground organization of young Crimean Tatars.

KhAIROV was arrested in September 1968 after a search of his apartment

Ul

uncovered incriminating documents, including SAXhAfiOV ' s "Thougnts on Pro¬
gress, Peaceful Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom,” transcripts of
trials of Crimean Tatars, and Persian poetry. KADYYeV vas arrested in
October 1965 and accused of compiling documents which defamed the USSR. 75
These tvo scientists were tried along with eight other Crimean Tatar sa¬
tirists in the so-called "Tashkent Trial” of 1 July - 5 August 1969. 7b
KhAIROV's wife had asked dissident ?. G. Grigorenko to appear at the tri¬
al as a public defender, to which he agreed. ?7 When he arrived in Tash¬
kent, however, he was arrested. KADYYeV 's background wan similar to the
otner Crimean Tatar dissidents: he had been given a mandate in the sum¬
mer of 1966 to represent the interests of a group of Crimean Tatars liv¬
ing in Samarkand before governmental and Party officials,?0 and had been
one of the ten Crimean Tatars to sign an open letter in July 1968 anneal¬
ing for help in stopping the genocide of the Crimean Tatar people.?^.

DZhEMILEV participated in the 25 August 1966 demonstration in Moscow's
Rea Square against the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia0^ and in the
June 1969 Crimean Tatar demonstration in Mayakovskiy Square, also in Mos¬
cow.01 In May 1972, DZhEMILEV, together with KhALILOV and KhAIROV parti¬
cipated in a meeting of nearly sixty representatives of the Crimean Tatar
people, during vhich the representatives reasserted the determination of
the people to return to the Crimea, despite the persecution and repres¬
sion.02 DZhEMILEV was arrested in October 1972 and was sentenced to a
term of three years confinement.0 3 In 1977 he applied to emigrate but
was refused. DZhEMILEV is the only Crimean Tatar scientist to actively
dissent since 1972. In 1977 he held a press conference in Moscow where
he told Western correspondents about the problems of the Crimean Tatar
people, apparently becoming the*ir spokesman. He has been described as
one of those activists in the nationalities' movement who have understood
tnat the solution of the nationality problem was inseparably linkea witn
the problem of democracy in the USSR, and that the tragedy of the Crimean
Tatar people was not only the result of the evil deeds of individuals,
but was the product of totalitarianism.00 Thus, DZhEMILEV seems to bridge
the gap between the ethnic movement and the human rights/democratic move¬
ment, an acnievement potentially quite significant for both movements.

This would widen the scope of dissidence among Crimean Tatars to include
support of human rights, and would increase the support for the Crimean
Tatar cause by enlisting the more powerful and influential human rignts
activists, with the accompanying foreign press coverage.

C. Christian Committee for the Defense of Believers in the USSR

The Committee was formed on 27 December 1976 with three members, all
Russian Orthodox, one of whom was chemist KAPITANChUK, who served as ;he
secretary of the organization. 87 Mathematician ShchEGLOV Joined the group
in 1976°® and physicist REGELSON has signed documents emanating from the
group. °9 The Committee was formed because, in the words of the members,
tne leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church and the leaders of other re¬
ligious organizations had not defended the rights of believers, so they

k2

had to defend their own rights. Even though all the members were Russian
Orthodox, the Committee has defended Baptists, Roman Catholics and Jews,
one of whom was mathematician BEGUN. ^ The Committee has collected stud¬
ied and disseminated information on the condition of believers in the
USSR, has rendered consultative assistance to believers, and has tried to
improve Soviet legislation on religion. The Committee nas claimed that
it vas loyal to the USSR and Soviet lav and that it vas willing to work
with governmental organizations if such a collaboration would improve the
situation of believers in the USSR.

0. Buddist Group in Ulan-Ude

A group of intellectuals, headed by a leading scholar of Buddhism, met
to study and practice Buddhism in private apartments in Ulan-Ude from
1970 to 1972.9^ Nine of the participants were arrested in 1972 and the
leader, B. D. Dandaron, vas tried 18-25 December 1972 for leading a reli¬
gious sect. Of the twenty or so people who vere involved in this group,
one vas a scientist, physicist ARANOV, and the wife of one of the members
vas a biologist, ZhELEZNOVA. ZhELEZNOVA* s husband, Dandaron' s first "dis¬
ciple" and an Asian historian, vas declared mentally irresponsible and
vas confined to a psychiatric hospital. Apparently, ZhELEZNOVA vas her¬
self persecuted for her husband's crime, although the information on this
vas not very clear. *

3. Revolutionary/Criminal Groups

There are relatively few known revolutionary /criminal groups in the
Soviet dissident movement, and of the fev only five can be determined to
have haa scientists as members: one vas ai Anarchist group; two vere
Marxist; one vas Christian Socialist; one vas Zionist. Because of toe
small number of members in all of the revolutionary/criminal groups and
the limited nature of their activities, it is highly doubtful that the
groups posed credible threats to the Soviet system; the Zionist group, in
fact, wanted only to leave the Soviet Union, not disrupt it. To the So¬
viet authorities, hovever, tne existence of such groups in the USSR vas
an anathema, particularly since it was a revolutionary/criminal group,
the Bolshevik Party, which overthrev the existing government in 1917.

A. Tne All-Russian Socialist Christian Union for the Liberation of the
People (VSKhSON)

VSKhSON vas formed on 2 February 196^* by four Russian Orthodox students

studying at Leningrad State University: I. V. Ogurtsov, M. Yu. Sado,

Ye. A. Vagin and B. A. Averichnin.^ The group lasted for three years
and eventually had a membersnip of about thirty individuals, tvo of vnom
were scientists. 9’ VSKhSON was a secret, neo-Slavopnile , military-polit¬
ical organization, an "underground army,"'^ which was committed to liber¬
ate the USSR from a tyrannical totalitarian regime and to establish a so-
cialist-Christian society and government. The group boasted of a large
library, a translating-research staff, a propaganda-ideological depart¬
ment, fifteen typewriters, photoenlargers, and over ten cameras. At the
time of its forced dissolution, the group had a military structure of
"squads" and "platoons," although the plans for military training had not
been implemented by this time. The KGB first heard of VSKhSON in March
1966,95 and in June and July of that year the KGB interrogated five of
its members. 9^ The only concrete thing the group ever attempted to do,
however, was to repair a printing press so that they could print leaf¬
lets with the heading, "Fifty Slogans of Liberation," for distribution
during festivities stirrounding the 50th Anniversary of the Bolshevik Re¬
volution in 1967, which they failed to do. 9? None the less, in late 1967
and early 1968 twenty-one of its members were sentenced to terms ranging
from ten months to fifteen years for conspiracy with intent to seize pow¬
er, and the group ceased to exist. 9°

Twenty-six of VSKhSON' s members had attended university, tvo of whom
were the chemist IVLEV, who became the organization's eighth member in
January 1965,95 ^ PETROV, who was brought into the organization in No¬
vember 1966100 and was one of its last members. While in VSKhSON, IVLEV
distributed anti-Soviet literature and recruited other members. In the
fall of 1965 he was instructed by one of the group's leaders to find out
the reasons the neo-Marxist group, "Union of Communards," composed of
chemistry students at Leningrad State University, was uncovered by the
authorities.101 IVLEV was presumably chosen for this assignment because
he was a chemist himself. PETROV was assigned to a squad which was pur¬
portedly training for a coup d'etat in Leningrad set for October 1967. 10^
Some of the meetings of the squad, in fact, were held in his apartment.
PETROV also photo-copied anti-Soviet literature for the organization. On
U February 1967 PETROV, who had Joined VSKhSON out of disgust for the Com¬
munist Party, experienced a revived sense of loyalty to the Party and de¬
nounced the organization to the KGB,10^ and by 12 July 19&7 all the mem¬
bers of the organization were under arrest. IVLEV received a comparative¬
ly mild sentence, only two years confinement. PETROV, not surprisingly,
received no sentence at all. After his release from confinement, IVLEV
worked as an engineer at the Obukovo Construction Combine.10 Ue has not,
as far as can be determined, resumed his dissident activities.

B. Society of Madmen on the Loose

This group was composed of young mathematicians, needed by Pli^ENOV, -.no
were interested in studying the history of the Russian revolutionary novs-
ment.105 The group, based in Leningrad, later became involved witn a

kk

group of students at the Leningrad Library Institute and some history
students, also interested in the Russian revolutionary tradition. Al¬
though the society apparently made no plans to overthrow the Soviet gov¬
ernment or implement a revolution, four of the society's members, includ¬
ing PIMENOV , were arrested and brougnt to trial, in 1957. PIMENOV con¬
tinued his dissident activities after the dissolution of the society,
though, and it could be argued that whatever group is united around PI¬
MENOV is a continuation of this society.

C. Leningrad Marxist Circle "Union of Communards"

This neo-Marxist group, composed of reportedly two hundred chemistry
students at Leningrad State University, was uncovered in the summer of
1965 and accused of clandestinely publishing and distributing a Journal,
"Kolokol" ("The Bell," from the name of Herzen's publication in the 19th
century), which bore the epigraph, "From the dictatorship of the bureau¬
cracy to the dictatorship of the proletariat." Only four issues of the
Journal were published before the KGB broke up the group. Nine people
were arrested for the publication of the Journal, the group leaders, chem¬
ists ROUKIN and KhAKhAYeV, and seven others, including the chemist MASh-
KOV. Interestingly enough, RONKIN, KhAKhAYeV, and MAShKOV continued their
dissident activities in prison. On 12 February 1968 they took part in a
hunger strike in one of the Mordovian labor camps, demanding they they be
recognized as political prisoners rather than criminals and that their
living conditions be improved.

D. "Revolutionary Marxists"

The group, headed by Yu. V. Vudka and 0. M. Senin, was composed of
young (20 to 27 year old) Komsomol members who got together to study Marx¬
ist literature. As far as can be determined, the group did not plan
any subversive activities. Thirteen of its members were arrested during
the Juiy-September 1969 period, two of whom were involved in science. The
"Revolutionary Marxists” group was apparently divided into two sub-group3,
"The Marxist Party of the New Type," based in Ryazan', "The Party of
True Communists," based in Saratov.^0 The Ryazan' group was headed by
Vudka and was composed of at least five other members , four of whom were
students at Ryazan' Polytechnical Institute. The Saratov group included
as its members physicist KULIKOV and fourth-year Saratov State University
biology student FOKEYeV, both of whom were arrested in 1969.

E. Zionist Groups: "Kishinev 9" and the "Leningrad 9"

i*5

These two Zionist groups were associated with the attempted hijacking
of a Soviet aircraft at Leningrad's Smolnoye Airport on 15 June 1970.

The Zionist group, the so-called "Leningrad 11," which included no sci¬
entists, actually attempted the hijacking, wnile the "Kishinev 9" and
"Leningrad 9" groups supported its action and had even planned similar
actions of their own. The "Leningrad 9" group, which included two sci¬
entists, was brought to trial 11-20 May 1971. The "Kishinev 9" group,
which included three scientists, was brought to trial at the end of June
in the same year. As was mentioned above, the trials of the "Leningrad
11," "Leningrad 9" and "Kishinev 9" led to the unification of the Jewish
dissident movement.

The "Leningrad 9" group was accused of maintaining contacts with Is¬
raeli Zionist organizations, inciting Soviet Jews to emigrate, and dis¬
seminating anti-Soviet Zionist literature. MOGILEVER, one of the sci¬
entists in the group, was one of the group's founders L. KORENBLIT,
the other scientist, was one of the editors of the Zionist "Samizdat"
journal, "Iton."11^ At a meeting of about ten Jewish activitists from
Leningrad, Moscow, Riga and Khar'kov, probably in 1969 or 1970, MOGILEVER
proposed that a single Zionist organization be created to unify the sepa¬
rate Zionist groups. The proposal was not accepted, though, in favor
of maintaining contact among the groups and effecting some degree of coor¬
dination of their activities. MOGILEVER was also involved in preparing
Hebrew language textbooks for the use of Jews wishing to emigrate, sign¬
ing collective protest letters to Soviet officials, and in transmitting
the protest letters to foreigners for dissemination abroad. He vas sen¬
tenced to four years confinement in 1971 for his participation in the
group. KORENBLIT, who had close contacts with the Zionist groups in Mos¬
cow and Riga on the publication of the Zionist Journal,11^ also taught
Hebrew to Jews wishing to emigrate. He had not, however, supported those
Jews who had planned to hijack the Soviet aircraft to Israel, and had even
attempted to talk one of the "Leningrad 11," Dymshits, out of proceeding
with the plan. KORENBLIT was sentenced to three years confinement in 1971.

The "Kishinev 9" group vas a composite of former students from Lenin¬
grad who had joined forces with Jewish activists in Kishinev upon their
transfer to the city in March 1970, and GAL'PERIH's group, vnicn had been
in Kishinev since about 1968.^° The Kishinev group maintained close con¬
tacts with the Leningrad group; it was the Kishinev group, in fact, whicn
printed the Zionist Journal "Iton" for the Leningraders. The Kishinev
group also conducted lecture and study sessions on the history of the Jew¬
ish people and Soviet nationality policies.

GAL'FERIN, VOLOShIN and LEVTT were the three scientists in the "Kishi¬
nev 9" group. GAL'PERIN vas selected to take part in the hijacking plan
as early as February 1970, and he got four other members of his group, in¬
cluding VOLOShIN, to agree to go along with him. GAL'PERIN collected mon-
#ey to buy the airplane tickets, but once it was determined that Israel vas
not going to support sucn activity, the plan was dropped, GAL'PERIN and
VOLOShIN had also been involved in tne acquisition of an electric dupli¬
cating machine in June 1969 to improve their "Samizdat" capabilities, '"he
two had stolen the main components and parts of the machine from a design
institute, but were unable to reassemble it. The parts were finally sent
to Leningrad, where it was reassembled under the supervision of members

Uo

of the Leningrad group. LEVIT had been involved in copying "Samizdat"
and had taught classes on -Jewish culture in Riga in 1969. Another sci¬
entist, E. BONDAR', although not a member of the group, was convicted
of refusing to give evidence at the trial of the ’’Kishinev 9" in August
1971. GAL 1 PZRIU , incidentally, received tvo-and-a-half years con¬
finement, and VOLOShIN and LEVIT both received two years.

*♦. Scientific/Professional Groupings

In the category of "scientific/professional groupings” are those groups
made up of Soviet dissident scientists who work together professionally.

It is not known if the scientists were dissidents before tney began work¬
ing together or if one of them influenced his fellows to become dissidents
none the less, it does pose the interesting possibility that a dissident
scientist's co-workers might be prone to dissidence. A particularly good
source for identifying working relationships in the scientific field is
the Letoois ’ zhurnalnykh statey (Guide to Periodical Literature), from
which one can derive information on co-authors of scientific articles.

One professional group centered around the biologist KOVALEV, BERKEN-
3LIT,118 ChAYLAKhYaN,11^* and SMOLYaNINIV , 120 all of whom signed the Galans
nov-Ginzburg protest letter in 1968, have co-authored scientific articles
with KOVALEV in the time frames, respectively, o' 1962-72, 1961-72, and
1965-71. BOYTsOVA, KOVALEV’s wife since at least 19T> and one who pro¬
tested his arrest in 1971*, co-authored an article with >iim in 1970. 121
LIBERMAN, who had protested the threatened expulsion in 1969 of ABAKUMOV
and DIONISIYeV from the Institute of Biophysics for anti-Soviet remarks122
was a co-author of a paper with KOVALEV in 196612^ and with SMOLYaNINOV
in 1967. KOVALEV, incidentally, had received his Candidate of Bio¬
logical Sciences degree from the Institute of Biophysics, 12^ KOVALEV al¬
so has co-authored with GEL'FAND in 1963; 12<3 GEL'FAND had protested the
Galanskov-Ginzburg trial and VOL'PlN's incarceration in 1968. KARPOVICh,
who had co-authored with SMOLYaNINQV in 1972-73 but not with KOVALEV, pro¬
tested KOVALEV's arrest in 1971* and his trial in 1976. Thus, eight sci¬
entists tied by professional interests were all dissidents. One can ada
to this number four of KOVALEV's co-workers at the Moscow Fish-Breeding
and Improvement Station, ZhUKOVSKAYa, MIZYaKIN, RYVKIN and YaNKELEVICh.120
KOVALEV's group apparently shared his views on the Soviet system, 125 and
all of them, with the exception of ZhUKOVSKAYa, had already or were later
to become involved in dissident activities: MIZYaKIN supported TVERDOKh-
LE30V in 1976 and Ginzburg in 1977, ® RYVKIN protested KOVALEV's intern¬

ment in 1971*;1^ and YaNKELEVICh, SAKhAROV's son-in-lav, signed protest
letters on TVERDOKhLEBOV ' s , KOVALEV's and Ginzburg's arrests, as well as
signing letters of support for Charter 77 and the Helsinki Monitoring
Group in 1977. lo2

The mathematicians who signed tne protest letter on VOL'PlN's incarce¬
ration in i960 were also bound by professional ties. S. NOVIKOV and P0ST-
NIKOV co-autnored in 19oL,133 and KR0NR0D co-autnored in 19^7,

and GEL'FAND and PYaTETsKIY-SHAFIEO co-authored in 15&4,^33 as aid GEL'-
FAND and ShILOV in 1^5c ana 1>o3,^3° £, NOVIKOV, PYaTETsEIY-SKAPIRO and
Suir/u-EVICh in 19o4tJ-27 GEL 1 FAND and FUKS in 19o7,^3® HIKLOS and SII.'AY in
lirbT,1^ GINDIKIN and VIIiBERG in 1567, 11+0 ana DGBRUShlii and MIKLOS in
lyb7.-^l It should be noted, though, that few of the mathematicians wno
signed tne VOL'PIN protest letter continued to dissent after his release.
Only thirteen of the ninety-five who signed the protest letter (BhAFARE-
VICH, ARNOL'D, GASTEV, GRABAP.', KRISTI, 'lUNTs, MEYKAN, POD ' YaPOL ' SKIY ,
PONOI-tAREV, PY aTETsKI Y -SH ft PIRO , ShIKhANOVICh, VIL ' YaHs , and VINBERG ) con¬
tinued to dissent, an indication that the majority of the mathematicians
had supported VOL 'PIN not as a dissident but as a fellow matnematician.

Another interesting relationship among dissident mathematicians was
displayed by the event g surrounding VINBERG's aoctoral dissertation de¬
fense in April 1977 VINBERG's dissertation had been ignored by the
appropriate academic authorities for several years, out of spite towards
VINBERG's dissident activities, and VINBERG finally sent his dissertation
abroad to get an unbiased evaluation. When his defense was finally sched¬
uled, fellow dissidents ARNOL'D and S. NOVIKOV tried to attend the process
but were removed nominally because they were not on the dissertation com¬
mittee. One member of the committee, MANIN, supported VINBERG's disserta¬
tion, but the other members refused to award VINBERG his doctorate for his
alleged dissident act of sending the dissertation abroad.

In the field of chemistry there are a few interesting relationships cen¬
tered around Academician KNUNYaNTs, who had protested the introduction of
new articles in the Soviet Criminal Code against dissidents in 1966 and
had suDrorted draft legislation for the elimination of censorship in 1967 .
KNUNYaNTs had co-authored a paper with ROKhLIN in 1967. 143 ROKhLIN had
spoken out against the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1966, and when
it was time for his re-election as Senior Scientific Associate at his ins¬
titute in, !*ay 1969, the director of the institute asked that he not be re¬

elected.

In spite of this, he was re-elected. KNUNYaNTs had also co¬
authored in 1967 with ARONOV,^-43 who had abstained from voting at a meet¬
ing in support of the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia and was releas¬
ed at the expiration of his Moscow residence permit. ® In 1976 ARONOV
signed a letter of support for TVERDOKhLEBOV and in 1977 signed a letter
of support for Ginzburg. 4 ' Two other chemists were also co-authors in
1967: BOChVAR.,who had protested VOL'PIN's hospitalization in i960, and
BAGATUR'YaNTs, ° who admitted to copying "Samizdat" he received from BUR-
MISTROVICh in 1967-08 at the latter's trial in 1969, and who promised nev¬
er to. deal with "Samizdat" again in the future. ^4^

In the field of physics, GINZBURG, who had protested the change in tne
Soviet Criminal Code in 1966, and FAYN, who participated in AZBEL's sci¬
entific seminars in 1975 and had organized the Jewish cultural symposium
in 1976, co-authored articles in 1957 and 1960.^-56 SOKOLOV and KhRIPiA)-
VlCh, both of whom signed the letter protesting the Galanskov-Ginzburg
trial, co-authored an article on nuclear physics in 1968, 151 LEVIN, wno
signed the Galanskov-Ginzburg protest letter in 1966 and, in 197b, along
with SAKhAROV supported TVERDOKhLEBOV ' 3 and ShUSTEE's scientific work, ^-5*?
co-authored an article in 19I+U with teacher, LEONTOVICh.^33 LEONTOVICh
has himself supported a number of dissidents, including MEDVEDEV, PIMENOV,

1*8

C-inzburg and 3ukovskiy, „ ;e 1966.15^ SAKhAROV and ZEL'EOVICh co-auth¬
ored a paper on. nuclear physics in 1957;^5 ZEL'DOVICh has not appeared
in any dissident contexts since i960.

Other noteworthy professional ties between dissident scientists indu¬
ed: B HANOVER and TsINOBER, both Jews who wanted to emigrate ( BRAN OVER in
1972 did so), co-autnored in 1965 ;15o TVERDQKhLEBOV and MANDEL'TsVEYG,
the latter of whom emigrated to Israel in 1973 after protesting a full
year, co-author:d in 19ol;157 KhRIPLOVICE and Okun', the latter of whom
gave TVEI- 1 OKhLEBCV research assistance in 1967^53 and in 1978 was ques¬
tioned to ascertain that he was not going to support ORLOV, 159 co-auth-
ored in 1907 ;i60 and KALLISTRATOVA and GURVICh, both of whom signed Ga-
lanskov-Ginzburg protest letters in 1966, co-authored an article in the
year 1963.161 There are, likewise, strange bedfellows found in this type
of investigation. One of the oddest was the association of ZASLAVSKIY
and Sagdeyev, who co-authored an article in 1961.162 ZASLAVSKIY had sign¬
ed one of the 1968 protest letters on the Galanskov-Ginzburg trial, and
Sagdeyev was known for his comment on the best way to deal with scientists
who had signed that very letter: "Get rid of them all. "163

KOLMOGOROV and TURChlN worked together on what is know in parapsychol¬
ogy circles as the "Great Telepathy Controversy. "l*3^ The newspaper Liter-
aturnaya gazeta sponsored a telepathy experiment in 1968 , for wnicn it re¬
cruited scientists as judges and referees. KOLMOGOROV was one of the
three academicians selected to evaluate the results of the experiment, and
TURChlN was named head of a special supervisory committee of ten scien¬
tists and engineers which was to monitor the experiment. The ‘experiment
was held between 10 and 13 May 1968 in Moscow and Kerch and no evidence
was found to support the existence of telepathy. TURChlN, incidentally,
wrote a letter to the editor of the newspaper soon after this experiment
to protest the newspaper's criticism of Solzhenitsyn, and he stated that
he refused to write for the paper or subscribe to it until tne present edi¬
tor was removed. l6p

On the other side of the parapsychology credibility line was NAUMOV,
who worked together with REGEL'SON at the All-Union Scientific Research
Institute of Medical Instruments and Equipment from 1972 to 197 •*, inves¬
tigating the biophysical basis for acupuncture and biological fields. 1°°
NAUMOV was an amateur parapsychologist and lecturer, who was sentenced to
two years confinement in 1971* for accepting money for his lectures. 1°T
It could also be added that A. ShTERN worked in an official, secret para¬
psychology laboratory in Novosibirsk in the late 1960's, researcning the
physical basis of psychic energy. 166

Finally, in discussing professional relationships among dissidents,
one tends to lose sight of the more frequent phenomenon of dissidents hav¬
ing professional relationships with non-dissidents. Do the dissidents in¬
fluence their colleagues in any way? Does the respect a scientist has
for another stop at the latter's scientific schievements, or does it 3pill
over to his other activities? One can cite the tremendous achievements of
SAKhAROV in the field of controlled thermonuclear fusion, one of the most
highly researched and financed non-military Soviet science projects. SAKh¬
AROV and TAMM developed the theoretical basis for the entire field in the
year 1950. 1°9 Do the researchers in tnis field hold any special regard

for their scientific "benefactors,” or have they been able to isolate
SAKhAF.OV the physicist from SAKhAROV the dissident. KAPITsA is another
example of a very influential dissident scientist. Has he influenced
younger scientists in any way, particularly vhen they realize that he
has been able to avoid the worst persecutions because of his scientific
prestige? Will the younger scientists wait until they have made signif¬
icant scientific contributions before they dissent? These are questions
that cannot be answered in this paper but unquestionably are of prime
importance in determining the extent and future of dissidence in the
scientific community.

5. Social-elite Groups

A large number of scientists about whom biographicaLl information could
be found come from families that could be considered as belonging to the
Soviet "elite," whether in the field of culture, politics or science.

This sociological phenomenon will be discussed in this section.

A. Cultural Elite

Seven dissident scientists can be identified as having been born into
families belonging to the cultural elite, perhaps the most famous of whom
was VOL'PIN' s father, the poet Sergey Esenin. Although Esenin apparently
spent little more time with VOL 'PIN's mother, Nadezhda Vol'pin, than was
necessary to create the future dissident scientist, 170 ana, in fact, died
the same year VOL'PIN was born, the prestige of having such a famous fa¬
ther must have had some bearing on VOL'PIN. TVERDOKhLEBOV was also
brought up among the cultural elite. His natural father, Nikolay Ye.
Tverdokhlebov, was chief of the Main Administration on Art of the Minis¬
try of Culture in 1953-51* and Deputy Minister of Culture in 195^-55.171
TVERDOKhT.F.BOV ' s step-father, and ZAK's father, Boris G. Zaks, was on the
editorial board of the literary Journal Hovyy mir from the time the iio-
eral poet Tvardovskiy assumed the position of editor until 1966;172 in
1977, moreover, he signed a protest letter on tne arrest of writer Ginz¬
burg. ^-7 3

Mathematician GASTEV's father, Aleksey K. Gastev, was a writer and
political activist who founded the Central Institute of Labor in 1920
and is considered one of the founders of Soviet proletarian litera¬
ture. 17 ** Gastev was a revolutionary and member of the Russian Social
Democrat Workers' Party from 1901 to 1908, He was later arrested and
shot during the Stalinist purges of the late 1930' s. Chemist BELOTs-
ERKQVSKIY’s father. Vladimar N. Bill'-Belotserkovskiy was also a writer
and revolutionary. 175 He worked in the United States for seven years
prior to the Russian Revolution but returned in time to participate in
it. Bill'-Belotserkovskiy is the author of the famous Soviet play about

50

the Civil War, "Shtorm," (The Storm), which is recognized as having set
the model for the "Soviet" play.

Biologist KOSTERINA ' s father, Aleksey Ye. Kosterin, was a popular
writer, an old Bolshevik, and later dissident, who was known for his
support of national minorities in the USSR.iTo During the Civil War, he
was one of the leaders of the partisan movement in the North Caucasus and
wrote for the Bolshevik press. He published a great deal in the 1920's
but little in the 1930's. He was arrested in May 1938, and spent the next
seventeen years in prison camps and exile. When he finally returned to
writing he was able to publish just a few works; most of his writing cir¬
culated in "samizdat." Less than two weeks prior to his death in 1988
he was secretly removed from the Union of Soviet Writers; just three
weeks, prior to his death he quit the Communist Party in protest of the
Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia.

Mathematician GPABAR ' is presumably the son of the Russian impression¬
ist painter and art historian Igor' E. Grabar'. Grabar' was an academi¬
cian of both the Academies of Sciences and of Arts of the USSR. He head¬
ed the Tret 'yakovskiy Gallery from 1913-25, and was instrumental in es¬
tablishing workshops to restore works of art in the Soviet Union after
the revolution. Grabar' was also a professor at Moscow State University
and was awarded tvo Orders of Lenin. Several of Grabar' s paintings were
in the collection of one M. I. Grabar' of Moscow, presumably Grabar' s
son. ITT

B. Military-political Elite

There are at .'east eight dissident scientists whose families belonged
to the military or political elite. The most significant one was LITVI¬
NOV'S grandfather, M. M. Litvinov, Stalin's foreign minister prior to WW
II and ambassador to the United States during the war; his grandmother
was Britisn.^78 LITVINOV's privileged status in Soviet society was, in
fact, alluded to in a bitter letter sent to him by "an ordinary Soviet
woman," who was reacting to LITVINOV's statement on KGB harrassment wnich
was broadcast by Western Russian-language radio stations in late 19o7.
While her reaction may not be completely accurate, it might be a common
(mis)perception shared by many Soviets on the children of the elite. The
woman described LITVINOV as one

to whom tne Soviet power has given everything, for
whom from infancy all roads have been open,... who
(has) always been able to go wherever (he) wanted,
who could choose whatever university (he) liked,
who (nas) always enjoyed material security, who
(was) given an apartment inside Sadovoye Kol'tso..
who (has) made a habit of capitalizing on (his)
forefathers' services and all for nothing, taking
all the rood things of life as (his) due. 179
This view is probably shared by Soviet authorities, altnough it undouotea-
ly raises unpleasant questions regarding their own children's status.

Other dissident scientists from the military-political elite were
MEDVEDEV, whose father was a Soviet Marxist philosopher and a aeaber of
the F.ed Army, who taught at the Military Political Academy and Leningrad
State University ; 3.80 TVERDOKhLEBOV , whose father was also a member of tne
State Committee for . national and Technical Education collegium in 19o2 .
and had served as the Soviet ambassador to Bonn at some point; Id AGUR-

SKIY, whose father was one of the founders of the Communist Party of tne
United States prior to coming to the USSR;^°2 AL'BEEKhT, wnose father

was an old Bolshevik, who was exiled by the czarist police for distribut¬
ing "samizdat” and for belonging to the Russian Social Democrat Workers'
Party; 1^3 GENKIN, whose father vas also an old Bolshevik;^1* KISLINA,
whose father was apparently a former political big-wig who as of 1969
was on pension and lived in the same apartment building as did Brezhnev; 135
and LOZANSKAYa, whose father was a senior Soviet general stationed in Mos¬
cow who had refused to help her emigrate to be with her husband in the
United States. 1S6

T!

C. Scientific Elite

Most of the scientists in this study who have come from elite families
have come from the scientific elite: SAKhAROV, LEONTOVICh, both TURChIN's,
all four VELIKANOV's , both VENTsEL's, MARKOV, BOChVAR, NOVIKOV, FRANKKAM-
ENETsKIY, LAND A, KELDYSh, and I^TVINOV are all from tne scientific elite.

The VELIKANOV's are children of Academician and hydrologist Mikhail A.
Velikanov (1879-196U) , who had received the Order of Lenin and was head
of the Department of the Physics of River-Bed Processes at Moscow State
University. 187 SAKhAROV' s father was physicist Dmitriy Sakharov, autnor
of a physics textbook and professor at the Lenin Pedagogical Institute .1® 6
LEONTOVICh 's father, Aleksandr V. Leontovich (1869-19^3), was a noted phy¬
siologist, 169 and FRANK-KAMENETsKIY' s father was presumably D. A. Frank-
Kamenetskiy, the physicist who worked with ZEL'DOVICh in the 19h0's on a
flame development theory. 190

Physicist BOChVAR 's father was metals specialist and academician Andrey
A. Bochvar, who received the Order of Lenin, a Stalin Prize, hero of tne
Soviet Union, and was a deputy to the RSFSR Supreme Soviet in 1955 » 1959 »
and 1963. J-91 At one time Bochvar headed a research institute in Lenin¬
grad. Mathematician S. P. NOVIKOV is the son of mathematicians Academi¬
cian ?. S. NOVIKOV and L. V. KELDSh, the sister of former Academy of Sci¬
ences President M, V. Keldysh. 192 KELDYSh' s father was an Academician
himself, a professor at the Military Engineering Academy in Moscow, a
Ma J or-General in the Encineerine-Technicai Services, and a Party mem¬
ber. 193

Mathematician V. ?. TURChIN and chemist K. F. TURChIN are presumably
tne sons of agro-chemist and professor Fedor V. Turchin (l69o-19b0), a
recognized world-authority on nitrogen fertilizers. 19** LITVINOV'S fataer,
;■!. M. Litvinov, was a physicist and senior engineer at a design oureau,
and nis motner, F. ?. Yasinovskaya, was a Senior Scientific Associate at

52

che Institute of Cardiology. The VUITsZL brothers' mother, Ye. S.

Ventsel, was a mathematics Drofessor at the Military Air Acadenv lirenl Zhuk¬

ovskiy, as well as a writer j-'0 MAHKOV's father was the matnenatician A.

A. Markov (lo 56-1922) and LAUDA' s x'ather was a professor and head of
tue School of Pathological Anatomy of the Saratov Veterinary Institute,-1--*3

6. Conclusions

What conclusions can he reached on the involvement of Soviet dissi¬
dent scientists in groups? First, scientists have played a major role
in dissident groups, particularly human rights groups and ethnic groups.
Scientists have not, however, been particularly active in che criminal/
revolutionary groups, possibly out of concern for their careers or out of
a basic loyalty to the Soviet system. The professional groups among sci¬
entists are significant in that they suggest that there mignt be numerous
other prospective dissident scientists among tne co-workers of aaown dis¬
sidents. Finally, that fact that a number of the dissident scientists
were from the Soviet elite suggests that Soviet authorities have lost the
loyalty and support of a group that should be among the most loyal to the
regime, as it enjoys its privileges at the pleasure of the authorities.

53

CHAPTER III

1. Theoretical Framework

In this chapter, information on the 5o5 scientists found in the "sam¬
izdat" sources who have dissented, requested emigration, or otherwise in¬
curred the wrath of the authorities is presented in tabular form and ana¬
lyzed. Given the closed nature of Soviet society, the information avail¬
able on scientists, particularly dissident scientists, is relatively

sparse; accordingly, certain variables have been chosen which conceivably
might be relevant to the causes of dissidence for given scientists, and
data which pertains to these variables has been collected. Obviously,
since an equal sample of non-dissident scientists has not been included, *
a comparison cannot be drawn between the dissident and non-dissident sci¬
entists to determine what variables do, in fact, indicate a proclivity to¬
wards dissidence. Nor has the hypothesis behind the selection of eacn
variable (as relevant to understanding the causes of dissent) been experi¬
mentally tested by psychological or sociological means; the hypotheses are
unproven and untested. What this collection of data does provide, howev¬
er, are experiences and personal backgrounds among scientists in the dis¬
sident scientist community. Correlations drawn from this data suggest
factors which might have led to or impacted on the scientists' dissidence.
It might even be suggested that? these correlations could be used to pre¬
dict the prospects of dissidence among scientists in the future.

The variables selected were: date of birth, ethnic origin, religion,
educational level, job title, place of work, field of science, Party af¬
filiation, relationship to the purges (self or family member), imprison¬
ment and hospitalization, dates of first and last dissident act, and city
of residence. A comprehensive description of these variables follow in
the next few pages; this should make the conceptual model clear and en¬
able the ensuing analysis to proceed with little further methodological
explication.

The "date of birth" variable provides the following information: it
determines the historico-political environment in which the scientist
grew up and worked, his "life experience," whether he was touched by the
Russian Revolution, Stalinist Purges, World War II, the "Thaw" of de-
Stalinization after the 20th Party Congress, the re-Stalinization by Brez-
nev, etc; secondly, the "date of birth" data, in combination with the
"year of first dissent" data, gives the researcher the age of the scien¬
tist when he first dissented. The age of the scientist, as well as the
era in wnich he grew up, might have a bearing on his decision to dissent.

The choice of "ethnic origin" as a variable rests on the assumption
that ethnic discrimination plays a role in causing a person to dissent,
particularly if the discrimination is supported by the authorities, as
it is in the Soviet Union. This variable is meaningful not only to sug¬
gest a cause of dissidence but also to determine the participation in

dissident activities of particular ethnic minorities, such as Jews, Ar¬
menians, Crimean Tatars, Lithuanians, etc.

The "religion" variable was included because it could be assumed that
Soviet policies of religious persecution would cause a religious scien¬
tist to dissent. This variable might also show a degree of personal com¬
mitment and the willingness to suffer, both necessary for a dissenter,
for the religious scientist might be under attach from both fellow scien¬
tists, who would be guided by the materialistic and rationalistic nature
of science, and the authorities, who would be supported by the Party's
anti-religious -'olicies. Another point is that Jew as an ethnic category
is separate fro. Judaism as a religion; it is by no means a certainty
that a Soviet Jew, even one requesting emigration, is a religious be¬
liever.

The "level of education" variable, one of the variables which indicates
at what stage in the scientist's professional career he became a dissident,
might snow whether the level of education of a scientist had a bearing on
his dissidence, whether the higher the level of education, with its atten¬
dant higher status and greater perquisites, the greater the motivation to
become (or not become) a dissident. The "job title" variable is the
other variable which indicates the scientist's professional level. This
variable is used to determine whether the type of job the scientist held
had a bearing on his dissidence.

The "place of work" variable provides data on the subordination of the
institute in which the dissident scientist worked, for the purpose of
determining in which admisistrative environment (Academy of Sciences,
All-Union Ministry, Republican Ministry, etc.) the greatest number of
dissident scientists are found. The assumption is made that institutional
subordination does play a role in causing dissidence; the reasons mignt
be more academic freedom in one administrative environment than in another,
increased social pressure to conform, or heightened security measures ta¬
ken with respect to employees. The data collected for this variable will
indicate m which institutes there are significantly large numbers of dis¬
sident scientists. Why these institutes have such large numbers is open
to speculation; in fact, it could be reasonably argued that, rather than
creating or causing dissidents, these institutes merely attracted them.
Whatever the reasons, these institutes vill be singled out.

The "field of science” variable indicates what field of science has
attracted, or caused, the greatest number of dissident scientists. Wheta-
er a field of science could "cause" dissidence is unlikely, but the sci¬
entist's choice of a particular field of science could indicate a "mind¬
set," which itself might be the "cause" of dissidence.

The "Party membership" variable indicates the number of Komsomol,
Communist Party, Marxist, and non-Party scientists within the dissident
scientist community. This data might suggest a relationship between po¬
litical orientation and dissidence. A methodological problem involved
with the collection of data for this variable must be pointed out, par¬
ticularly if one is interested in extrapolating the total number of sci¬
entists involved in such activities from the information available. Data
on Party membership was drawn almost exclusively from information on

55

on expulsions from the Party. It cannot be ascertained, however, if all
dissident scientists who were Party members were expelled for their ais-
sidence or if all the expulsions were brought to the attention of those
individuals who were assembling the various "samizdat" documents, Inus,
the low numbers of Party members in this sample cannot be interpreted as
a low number of Party members among dissident scientists with absolute
assurance.

The "Purge" variable identifies whether the dissident had a direct or
indirect personal contact with the Stalinist purges, a factor wnicn would
conceivably affect his loyalty to the Soviet regime, particular after
Khrushchev's ouster with the re-Stalinization of Soviet society. Infor-
.nation has been collected on the family background of the dissident sci¬
entists to determine if their fathers, mothers, siblings or they them¬
selves had been victims of the purges.

The "prison" and "hospitalization" variables show trends in the arrests
and confinements of dissident scientists, trends which would presumably
be considered by prospective dissident scientists to determine the risk
involved in an act of dissent. When arrests and confinements were down,
tne scientist would presumably be less inhibited to dissent. It is left
to the subsequent studies to compare the sentences given the scientists
witn those sentences given non-scientist dissidents to see whether the
scientists were given preferential treatment. This woula be a highly
complex comparison, though, since one would have to consider different
courts, different crimes, and different political atmospheres.

The "year of first dissent" Variable indicates the number of new dis¬
sidents emerging each year from tne scientific community and provides
data used to chart the "progress" of dissidence among Soviet scientists.

To determine a causal relationship, why an increase or decrease in the
number of dissidents between certain years, one must refer back to tne
historical events of the given years for clues, and the historical account
of dissidence contained in Chapter I should provide the necessary back¬
ground. As mentioned above, this variable is also significant in tnat it
indicates the age of the scientist at his first act of dissent.

The "year of latest dissent" variable is important primarily as a means
to determine whether the dissident was active through a particular year
or whether he had returned to normal, non-political life. This information
is used, together with the "year of first dissent" data, to show the number
of dissident scientists active in the USSR per year. The assumption is
made that between the first dissent ana the latest dissent the scientist
could be classified as a "dissident," whether there is evidence that ne
participated in a dissident activity in each year or not.

The "city of residence" variable consists of the name of the city in
vhicii the scientist lived at the time of his first dissidence or during the
greater part of his dissident activity, excluding exile or prison. I is
significance is that residence in certain cities might lead to a greater
proclivity to dissent for reasons of, conceivably, greater access to "sam¬
izdat" and the dissident community. This variable also includes informa¬
tion on emigrations and defections, and this information will be used to
chart trends in the number of dissident scientists leaving the USSR be¬
tween certain years.

5b

2 . Data

The purpose for the data contained in the following biographical table
can be found in tne notes for Chapter III, pp, 137-163 under the name of
the scientist.

KEY TO THE ABBREVIATIONS 13 THE TA3LZ

Ethnic

Place of Work

Est

Estonian

Activ

Activity

Rus

Russian

Agric

Agricultural

Jew

Jewish

Appl

Applied

C-T

Crimean Tatar

Atom

Atomic

Arm

Armenian

A-U

All-Union

LTkr

Ukrainian

Autom

Automation

Pol

Polish

Catal

Catalysis

Lit

Lithuanian

Cent

Center

Lat

Latvian

Comm

Committee

Comp

Compounds

Religion

Constr

Construction

Ort

Russian Orthodox

Cyb(er)

Cybernetics

Cat

Catholic

Destr

Destructive

Jud

Judas im

Dev

Development

Bud

Buddhist

Disinf

Disinfection

Ath

Atheist

Elect

Electronics

Bel

Believer

Elem

Elementary

Bapt Baptist

Eng(in)

Engineering

PVLTJ

Equip

Equipment

Epid

Epidemiology

F Father

Exper

Experimental

B Brother

Geochronol

Geochronology

Y Self

lad

Industry

Info

Information

rield of Science

Inst

Institute

Phys

Physics

Instr

Instrument

Chea

Chemistry

Mech

Mechanics

Math

Mathematics

Metal

Metallurgy

Geol

Geology

Meth

Methods

Biol

Biology

MFTI

Moscow Physico-fech

Astr

Astronomy

Inst.

Ocen

Oceanography

Mosc

Moscow

Med

Medicine

Nerv

Nervous

Cyb

Cybernetics

Nucl

Nuclear

Bio?

Biophysics

Observ

Observatory

GeoP

Geophysics

Onco

Oncology

Zool

Zoology

Organ

Organic

Geod

Geodesy

Fed

Pedagogical

Phgy

Physiology

Polym

Polymer

Gene

Genetics

Prob

Problems

>7

P lac e of work

Job Title (cont.)

Proc

Processes

Rep

Republican

Resear

P.esearca

Sea

School

SRI

Scientific Research Inst.

Stat

Station

Tech

Technical/Technology

Terr

Terrestrial

Taeor

Theoretical

Trans

Transmission

VTIIITI

A-u Institute of Scientific
and Technical Information

Virol

Virology

GrSt Graduate Student

DepC Department Caief

dDeC Deputy Department Chief

Education
D_ Doctor (of)

E_ Candidate (of)

?M Physico-Mathematical Sciences
BS Biological Sciences

GS Geological Sciences

K S Chemical Sciences

TS Technical Sciences
MS Medical Sciences
Ph Philosophical Sciences
PS Pedagogical Sciences
Dip University degree only

City of Residence
Em Emigrated

De Defected

hovosioir Novosibirsk

Job Title

Acad

Academician

CorM

Corresponding member

CMUk

Corresponding member of the
Ukrainian Academy

Prof

Professor

Dots

Docent

SSA

Senior Scientific Assoc,.

J5A

Junior Scientific Assoc.

Asst

Assistant

LabC

Lab Chief

Dir

Director

Stua

Student

Teac

Teacher

GruC

Group Chief

Eng

Engineer

56

SOUSpTScV

Jo a*T3

AiXiiiOV. Yu

SO’JSpiSe^

JO hlO

Moscow

Moscow

Moscovr

Moscow

Moscow

Em* 197 /
Moscow

Em* 1977
Moscovr
Kiev
Moscow

lliga

Moscow

Moscovr

Kiev

Moscow

Moscovr

Moscow

Moscoi;

Moscovr

Kiev

liovocherk

Moscow

na||ni

■ |i | [I ■

(S»W)

mTQSOH

(sa^ep)

UCSTJq

r- O Oi o

vn r- r- o

1 1 1 •» 1

vr> os cy cv co fn

c^n so -nt i> o r-

paS^tiji

!h >-i

«

aocajsg

jc PT3TI

lUiBfeK^^i^i

Last Place
of Work

Inst of Atomii
Energy

Inst of Uiol.
of Developmen

Inst of Zool.
Inst of Elem
Organic Comp.
Computer Cent
Lat. State U

Inst of Solirl
State Physics

Kiev Tech Ins
of Light Ind.

Mosc Inst of
Agric. Engin.

SRI of Comm,
on Inventions

®ItTx qof

uopq.aonps

IMMPI ■—

*0 ,5

a -fj

Hj <

■

» 5 5 S _ _ .

© © ©©>55

►"3 Tj l-j) © © ©

1-3 1-31-3

q^ia
jo »w

g> <o »- cv c- co or oo

Or- O T— CO ITS CO CO

0^ QN Q\ QN Qs O'* O'* O

NAME

JO . • M . . — .

O > G TO JO >

•H O O C i! O

> G JO E TO C JO -H 3

© to o e © a g o 3 «

© «S 5 *-1 > Cs, j* o *h 03

G g 2 m ©3 > a 3

TO TO © 0 2 g 2 H> M ©33

G S J* .G > 3 — <© - <h

« 3 CO g « JO B c q 3 |H © r) H g •

B H U f» H g TO© tJ-G -H M l-H

> ,* «t -h 0 © © v. -h a g © m

© t/JC© >3 © 3 «H C >H O £ C -c-t

•4 jh cH 0 jo© S 0 yj 3 p» c o

■D '*OBG3 0r-t5-‘.Gw OT C-4 *H JG

• _ _ M -H 00 H TO G C ' - to 3 3 -H tH « :0 - -" ©

J3 3 03 > G •> »3 G r. SJ «* C «H G B !g G 3 ch

3 *5 2 > >n C g 2 > » 3 H •> B Q O M •» O 3 -H

« *0 Q 3 M M >-t B •> 3 > OO -3 M 3 >n 23 5

•g > 3 3 2 3 _ 3 •» »•* 3 W CO M « H H J

3 O « J3O0'4«3 333 0» «* >T 3G

3 3 3 3- - >H 3 3 rH ■? MM*o O >H 3 « 303^*00

oj 3 33-3 3 3 M 3-1 «r 3 33"0 33 3 M H 3 j-> 3 3 S

© «e 3 “ 3 3 3jo-« S'ccc *t-3 05 S 33*t-ji-h3s

h 333 3 33 -j !M 333 33 33 S 3 33330

3 yj > 3 «*^<t < « <t -< - <r'3 jdgrayatH

*« «T •«»*•< <s 333 -3 333 33 33 3 3 3 3 J 3w

bO

4

- 04
s r-

O O'
y r- >
CO « Q)
O S -H
2 4a

3 3 ? 3
o o o o
uooo
w B to ca

3

o

> > y
® <d ca

J3

•H 3 3 3

ca o o o
o y y o
> ca ca ca
o .2 .g .2

<*\

s r-

O O'
y e *-
ca to «•

£2 Ji

3

a

5

? >

<D

3

©

©

© ©

>“3

a3

*“3

^ »-3

«tWH
jo s-jug

O JH

aa5**

3 vj .

> 3 n

• ShS<

3 J3 ^ ^ >
H O = P» J
i!a 3a j
j) h >< a a

3333 3

go c

i-e §

® 2

— a ;» «

H Od H

3 i-t •s

!M iH

Sh y Ch

u a '»( to

G r- 1 C

» s a < a
Jd '9 >» 3d

CD 3 <0 •> O

(H 33 H

■« JT 'O «e

- .3 2 .

3 > 3 Hd

3 o ch 3 ‘3

3 0 3 3 3

5 2 3 a 3

<0

■p

a >

3C"SpT3c(£

jo Aid

VA

3 O' 5 £

O o o

o e o o

U m IQ Q

O Jj | ^ 5

'C

c r» c-

CNi _ J-i C'-C'-

JC>?ep O' os

OOOC> r- 1—0

O <— O *H P > > O

a«*ac>® ••«••«

s ggg.Saajd

2 3 5 5 3

O O O O O

O CJ o o o

w2 « w W 03

o o o o o

iA«tOC3 OCO
^•vO O O P"0
O o On o\ o

(S3^p)

IB^XQSCH

(sa^Bp)
UCS pid

paS.an.jj

e*

1

lA

>•

70-

69-74

T—

r»

r-

c-

ci

i

ow

nD

c-

<u

c c

•H O
<hHiH

o <u p

Q. V
(-( -H p

as a, £

cn -p

c oi
n -h c
I c o
^ '1

H O-H
-O C P

oca

i. ^ a
S< c-1 |H

<P O **" t*
o CH «h -P
com
+» W 3
a H *0
C <H C C
M O 05 M

■P O C • •

3 H H

® -P MOO
oo a c ® c

c 3 a o
b n ^

<u _ • <p x:

■p 3 o o

3 o -p o
q,o a-P oi
S a C a a

o o o c

P A O H -j)

qor

wts

jo a^ia

Jew

Jew

Jew

Jew

llus

Jew

Jew

Jew

Rus

Jew

$

CM

00

CO

CO C*r

cm

0s

CA

CA

cr\

iA

0s

o

O'

O'

O' O'

O'

3

3

o

O

©

©

CO

©

03

£

•rl

.2

— ^

3 3 3
O O O

id O O O

1 5 3 a 3
5

,2. £

3 0 O'

0 3 t—

SfH CJ -
11^1 « J

£5 §13

S-t 'U
•H co
JQ U
> 5 3-H tfl

o o o w s

© O © O «H

W CO W > C

o o o o o

(sa^p)

UCSTJ:^

aocoxos
jo PT3TJ

oa io jz ta ,-t

co oa xi

l>i? 3

Ot 0* 3

=>

« •

X! • +> .H
+> J3 C O
e +> -P -h
actao
3 •

'in (< M O

o m a o o
o a -h
-p ft -p ta

ggg g£

nm qor

uoTq.5onp3

3

2

:*

>

a)

a?

©

©

*-*

*"3

►~3

►"3

WTS

jo aq.«CI

§« +j
<m a

st-s-s

§ ,1 3 S *

M - C

» e

-•s 3 > >

3 > m y H
M O i3 J

2 m 3 y *

3 < 2 i 3
a a o a a

- J jj >3 .S

a >-“

ip

_■* *o

b 3

a 3 e
>»3» H 2

— -H

H «• •» C

H g < s

2 > i»

» 3 ®

jj2>j •>

«« a) M £

-3 x 3 x

« S

J 3 3 3 «.

4” o3

I js*a

J H H *H

3 3 3 pa rf

CQ

C Pd O -P

h I 8 £
•h o o <r
> to 5 w

c ■ j

•rl U *H 5

C O CQ O D 3

sag stt

f» O
<U

Ct> 5 3
•H r- O O

U H 8 u

a 53 3

3 S' 3

Or O
8 la a

333

>

m o
C- 3 Jrf 3
O' O - O
t- o ^ o

« ;i r s

5 £3333

to t— n a r-

1 £■ £• 'O c- r>

O' O (Jn 0s 0s 0s

(ss^p)

mTGSOH

(sa^Bp)

ucspj^

O -P

a 3

33 5

3

S3 S3 • =>

® ® a m ®

+> -p O E-< -P
e s-p 4. «
-P -P < Z -P
CO Cfl CO

> «-■ « C

0 3 0 >> *H

-p o Q a

g a is as

CO 3 M M «

s> o c ® > • a u

I ® Tl 3 P rl S ®

ppm ta-p q, t-i pa

> 0 tfl C «H O 0, o >»

p c«s*c < a, ® o

CO M O

I i <H W tH CM -H cm

3 3^000 0 3 0

O O -P O • «

o a m-p 3PSPSP
occPhtpnoa
QQOCOCcCCOC

•O

S!?s

IP'S I

•H CD TD

c ^ a

•im w

WTH
jo »W

Jew

CQ

3

Jew

Jew

Jew

3

CD

*“3

*!•

CD

►"3

Jew

>

a>

►“*

Jew

5

CD

■“D

Jew

Jew

Jew

555=

3

C'l

O' O'

o

O'

0s

O'

£

r~ r—

x—

r—

* —

susp-rscy

Aq.ro

, ^ o t-

3 5 r* H '0

o o o ns o

oqor-ir-
sa Q a <y —

■a s3

r O -h
L3 > C

955.5ii=i,!j2S 3

wj »-4 -* _« H ««•

? 3

o o

5 8 8 > >

ri -9 5 « «

— — — 73 73

(ss^tp)

mfdsoH

(*®TO)

ccspirf

paS^nj:

-*

<r>

r~

c!i

1

CO

c-

<n S-t

° ta° &

a^s-3

mono

3 .£> 3 3

ID 3 O

3 +> QJ H C O

<8 3 +> P -H ID 3

O-P-PcSOr-l-P «

^ n j!-p f+ co >» c

K *3 W ® <rl I— I

+3 3 • 3 +> O

h 3 CJi 3

• no con id o

>o a • > i-( 3 o

+ > h ■+ cl, <u o n n

as4d«hhe o

J3« ID « PL, 3 M S

aim qor

:-. 3 5 3 3 3

I © a! to a> v

O l-J l-s *-S 3 l"3

wra

JO

AviationTech,

iUSpTaejj 3 3 j; O

Aio § § S J

3 2 -5=5

'a s*

C i-t

fc. ,U

60 iH

a a

TJ

r

> U

o c

c

*«

to

G

tJ

c

£

g g

■s £

a-g

•H

c

o o
a co

3:§

s jj

o

k3

,3

3 a

'U ta

o o S? g g o

Sh S « 3

* ,8« Q Q O

5 5

(s»W)

tnicisoH

(saw)

ucspaj

paSjnj

$

m

er

r»

'O

38

o

C*-

J2

5

Q>

3

01

a

*“3

o

3

^0

*-5

as

WTS

jo a**a

>

«s

U rH
h'Orl
03 C i-t
t3 e h
h ® t(

a> Jd '.a
■~n 03
<—( •>

»< >
a !j

cH >£
M ^ O

>5h

- w

3 => J

O 03

vj a <h
£6 bfl
h

M > O
3 93
« Q 3

a'S-al^

c .40 3 • -P

« •Sh > 'J g

M 03 ** »«H «

z > ** o

rz » ?> •»

2 4a r* * ch jq
- O O •Ji 3 ;»

03 »-l -H
O -pod

•a c o

® c m <u

* 5> ^

O h

H •

> i-d 03

c < j; a Ji

3) 3 J3

»M 3 »

**> 3 Z <*

> OH'! O

O >H > H H
3< « dHH

If 5?

p.

3 tp 3 3

o sf o o

O "H 3 O O

a a JS a a

3 J S 5 5

3 5
O a
o p a
5 > 63

JU 53

3 3 3 3

o o o o

So o o ^

a a a a

33332

co to o r**

(S3'’ Sp )

WT&oh

(*»W)

CCSf^

paS^n^

aocspog

JC pT3T£

o

cr

CM

Cj-

vrv

CO

O

SO

i— I a

A A C A
O <3 <B -P
<d u U d

£h Od,ri 2

o 3 n o n
O -P O <H O
■H -H C
M -P -P H -P
>» a a a
a c a <n a
a, i— i h o h

• 3

e a
o +->
■p a
« -p
(P

m »

°

-P Pi o

a « a

553

Pi •
S r-4

a o
a p.
a «h
« a >
■p

Pi 3 <P
a -p o
a -H
r-t -p +j

a a a
" C G

aim qof

uopq.Bonp3

£ 3 3 £

3

5

>

V

0)

0)

*"3

*"3

•-3

WTa

JO 8^

scspTstg
JO AlO &

T3

r e

>» V.

3 5 3 £ C W>

o O O « C Vi c

o a o s a .a -h

3 a cj j c m a

3 3 3
o o o
> o o o
a> to sa to

3 3 3 3 £ « ® ^ -j | 2

: 8

Qn Q\ 0s 0s O O

Hath 1961 196b Moscow

1971 1975 Novosibir

Math 196i 1966 Moscow

:"=?T3c£

jo Ato

T5

c £

3 -h 6a 3

o c a o

?> O *-» P O

o «h d 8

TJ

C

C'' In

3 c- ojf-
O O' C O'

O T- -H «- c;

m m a •• u

a a .3 a a

T3

C

3 3 U 3 3

O O S O O

y o p o o

a a 3 a to

-r\ to

3 3 ^ 3

Or Or O

o o y

a » a m a

aa^aa j j a

lf\ CN CO 33 -

^ ^ C> S'

^ 9 I OH*J
O b Orl « a

® (-i a 63 a

p cn p a rH

a -a o js xj a,

S (J< -P o •

mo a u g

3 S'3<5?£,5

O -H P O

So p a c a,

o to a a

O a a 33 -3

0 3*
3 V ® 5
O o -P o
P P C -P
« o -P «*
P UJ
a H ^ Vl

3 2d 3 O
o to o

O O -P
a 3 a to
O I o c
S «* S M

* £ £

Oi a a.

«V <p S

&° fc°,3

V, +3 V. p P

a a a a o

-p :=

O 0)

4) 43

rH «k CJ

* e?5j

Oh p

0 0 3

p-g §
a a a

c ^ 3

®i^tx qor

(0

>

3

3

3*

3

>

3

£

>

3

<0

a

<D

0}

0)

07

ffl

0)

o

*“9

►-3

►"9

>"9

►“9

*-j

*-9

*-9

wra

JO

O'

O'

O'

O'

w

O'

O'

O'

fcl >

ts a

I 3

-o >

H ® U 9
H « H »
« «* P > 2»
2d J J

p » • is

3, 23 « :» 3

: ;l < j 4

H J 2 2 2
J 2 S J5 a
2 3 2 3 2

3 >

8

>

M JS

J3 X

•J P

^ 1

5 3

!o

3 3

5 >. > H

r i-3 2* % IA

Jri3

-3 3 3 P P

3 3 > > :i

-r ■ - - J

CUSpTSeJ/
JO iC^TO

O P J
C 3 JS P
P o o a
.a a .a o
io 03 a >

3 0^55

— — «~4 <^1 ■*« —* -p

^ W'

O «— o o
q o O

(0 N U (Q

ii S 5 4

■—• P ■ -* P

s 3 r* j
o o <- a

3 O' C5 3
O t- C O

to m « (0

5i.S3:g

3 3 3 ^33
0 O 0 C' o o

s a 8^ a a

O CO o
sD CO P-
O'C'O

o o p-
r- p- p-
C'OT'

(S8^p)

XB^QSOH

paS^nj

CM

P-

fr

o

CNi

r-

p-

^t“Bd I ?S

aocopog
jc PX3TI

p o o a

cd a ® 3

a p ci to

<0 M f>» w t.

p a. S3 c e o >,

a o m <u u

P Vt i-( JZ <P P

oi oo3a on

p o p

> pay® PS

® a a c a ®

P C ^ O P C -G

id Ha,~fo mo

aim qor

uox^Bonpa

3

Atli

Jud

3

3

3

3

CQ

>

3

3

3 3

3

Q)

0)

<D

<D

3

0)

Q)

0) QJ

a

^9

>"3

«

*“3

^“3

►-3 *"3

•■-»

wrs

J0 3q.TS*I

a^w^g nooaofj

jo ^suilgg

5C'JSpTSeJ£

JO AlO

C

cjO c

c C: *

i-t £s o
s r- q
•h -h
«H •• C

33 3

> 3 r-

1) Cl M

3 J? 3

25-3 5 555 5

3 3 3
o o o

V V V
CO CO *1

.9 .9 9

g §
H 8
£ 5

3fc

j\ On

r» t—

■peo

gS

sC

&

1977

1977

CO cn

'C

o a*

r— r—

CO CO \

•w r*.
os os (

r* r— ■ i

~c

NT eg

o

VA CO

eg cjn

a ta " •

co r-

t^O

NO u~\

v : ’*o

O'./

o o

ON ON

o

CN CN

o o

ON O' <

,-> r-

'— T~

*—

T—

r— r— i

(S3-tp)

I^PGSOH

(sa^p)

ucsp^i

paS-mj

aoccpog
jo PT»T£

O ("A CM

'T'^'T

tA CO CO
VO AC

rC

3d

33 33

rH

£3 33 f

o

P P

O

<D +J

£

“3

JS -S

2}

33 c

O 5

=3 0 0
« <p td

p e

CC P <D

+3 ca u
ul c ®

3 M "*

O P •
O C P

« p o
£03

■*• -3 dd

33 33 P 33

P P O P

3 ^ 3 5

td 3 P 32
O ■ ffl C <0
a> to -p Qj -p
33 >> 3 O H
i £-• 33 P -p
! a, « c. oi

Vd V

O . 3 -P 3
a o 3 o
P * O CU O

bj td <n e “>
c o o o
3 a 2

•Tin qor

uop^scnpa

§3 £ S> &£! &

wth

jo ag.xa

> o

2 u

p cl

'S §

> V

§ a 3

P P

p oi <n

>» c J <u

d

<i> W

td

^5

>

5

a o

cc

?H S

J

Q> > •

»r 3

>

J5 >

o

V«4

o

«k

■-£ •.

j3 3

P

!h

A *t tp|

3 ?»

>

JO >13

X P <0 r-1 P

■»1 4 "d H -3

■i “3 *5 d

ij IH
a> td p
H ® P
J > 2

^ *

3

‘-4 > 3

rt J-C

21-
3 1

•a td

® p ^ p
&• P fci H

e p

>.33 TJ

p pi a

td p P

P 3 >

> dP « P

a?s.|

iiill

aaaiu

Hobart Adol* fovlch

»2UcP7Se£

jo Aid

T3
C*- C

sSip

^ «H *H

•** « N « «M W MlUWU4M?>9IMtW H

=§ 2$x a a & ss

O O ^ o cv to

£■ 5^ t to o

0n 0s 0s 0^ 0s 0n 0s

r r~ r» t— r- r- r—

O O vO Q> cv to to CO 00 ^ T- to to C o Sf o

^ £■ O ^Ow O n0 ooot o

0n On O' 0n o 0n 0n Qn On On 0n qs qs 0s 0s 0s CT^

-3

•H

X3

3

>

G

c

5

5

CQ

CQ

o

o

>

O

3

O

O

o

o

o

®

V

-p

o

>

>

w

CQ

fi

CQ

u

o

o

o

O

®

o

C

jo

*4

fH

6-«

vO

O' S'

I

g

o

£

3

r*

CO

CO

o

nO

'0

m

O'

ON

O'

rr\

(S3^p)

inTQSOH

(saqjsp)

ucspi^

pa&m<i

aotraTsg
JC PT3TJ

<D « G «B +>

O 'O O >v OC

O ® -C JC -tJ

<H .C £C 0. W

H^^S1

§ • ° 8.33

3 x 8 o

I A C Q (,

»im qor

uof^sanpa

s M

® 4> O

A <Q ®

u e Ei

HI

Vi a a

o o > <o

Tl O C

4> DCU

c ir a vi
M 0.3 o

W 3

l-J .£

w

■D • „

UQ.fi * • C 3

3 -H +» > r-l ®

3 <n fi o S ®

Vi O’^ ® .h a. i-i

oh m a o e

G .Q i— I -P

M 4 e O VI ® CQ

a * o >

W U C • ® 3

v> f. ® +> q +>

3 a d >> n (,

I C £>ic G vi o

jo

3 C

O xjH
^ « <
s§8

C -G x

S v)

=S ^ 3

* s i

« 3 M

•T5-TI =.or

uox^scnpg

ft ft ft

CO s
13 ft

PliVZWEK, iioyemi Jew Jiol 197<l 197U Moscow

PllilitlOV, Ilevol't Ivanovich 1931 DPM Inst of Math lath >7-63 1949 195 1 197* j Lenincm

PLUTKHI DPH Prof La tv. State U lath 1969 1969 Rina

co '■i-

» J* 3 3

o r- o O O

> o o o a

Q) (Q M Q (0 n CQ

O 3

to . c«-

O 5 O'

S O t-

Ih c: > o

IX tl D a

o o 3^ 1

eo co 3
■3 0 N

(ss^tp) (E

XB^pdscH ci

(sa^ep)

ucsp^i

MM -P 3 G M

E-C O >» 3 O M

m o. a. o a s:

3 M O a « O

HK O O OX I

>01 lOSDH

Vt tO M M

o o o o

18 +» +» J3
a in +j

aTVFI qor

qvia £

jo aiiq o

X J3 as U
mo >®

aS X «» 01

01

3

>

o

s

e •

X X ai
«" M >

X >

«k a

3

*

>

•k

Jd

V

M

3

•o «
o >

>a

H-(

3

3.

C

1

S

as id o

01 01 3

> > «c

as >

3 M

<3 3

a

•a- *r

a «k

> 3
as

»M

3 01
as 3

M (C

=T 3
31 3

>1

01

3 3 as

3 01

<C

3

3

a

|

o

> >

> 3

3 X

3 3

*1

3

333

2 PI

o a

>H

i-3

O

3 O

3a 3*

3 3

-3 f-1
a. 53
o o

&-> >

W 01

3 3

£5 >

3 2

3j 3 C

O -P
3 -H < M

01 > >

. I o •>

X M 3 •>
M *rl OX

Id M MM

«"■ W O >‘-d

H M 301

- XI 3>

He 3X

D !h ««*

*H -rf <0

P> U2

oooooocaq^H o

OOOOOOO^G> V

WB30ltQW&3>(ijC5) 02

O ~ -H -rj £

to to o ;o to to to ■•; iaitv co si
oor-ooooc'-c'.p-ot-

C'O'3'O'C'C'O'Q'O'O'O'O'

B

>,

3 3 0

o o a
o o n >

W tO (5 V

so to»
o 00
o ON O'

X'Sq.TCLSCH

(3aq.sp)

UCST-I^

»im 0.0 r

uof^cnps I £

cc O

cn m

05 CO

uu »

co c

Q) U

_ =*_2i _

Ol Hj

5J »-3

co r3

c

-«

sail Si u

WH

JO 9^

«- <u
ta

•h o 2

U >4

a

>H >»

*3 3 5

w- a “T*

tgojo

x: st o

O O *H
•H -H >

> > g
0 0 3
rH rH "H
>»

C C ffl
35 J3
_ J4 34
> H’HTSH'
3 — -H
C

+> U o

MOO
S3 3 X> -J

3).* r

>-**£> 3 *

. .3 - :

Soil j »;

m 3 s3 u m a 5

H 3h H r-4 2D 2
2X03 £3;

-0 o x a m a i

e a
>

<*-4

•> O M

§ *3 a
3i3

2 M O
0 3 3
a a r-t

> J o ;
h 2 s< i
a so 'a p

77

ois.uuuh.nuu, i V DF1 Prof Inst of Math Math 196J 1969 Kiev

CMUMiev State U

SKVIKSKIY, Vladimir 196' 1977 Moscow

SlilhMOV, Yu M J>FJ Prof Inst of Hath Math 196i 196£ Moscow

•

-3 G

rH

*C

'U

u

«

c *h

O

r

•H

3

Vi V2

C. w

£

Vi

>»

>,3

r-

s

3

*H

O 5 C

S’

3

y

•H

2*

•H *H

5

c>

S?

O

0

G ®

G O I®

O O

>

O

a

0

^ <0

o

o

o

o

o

o

•H O

>

> U ®

o o

o

o

•H

o

- o

CJ

CJ

a

c

rH

w

WO

s >

<D

C w o

a

CO <0

u

C3

c

Vi

CJ

CO

M

10

>"C

o

o

a; o

s

■P O 3

GJ

$ £

•H

O

<u

o

g

o o

o

o

o

o

>

►J 3

« 3 O

►J

►j

3

3 3

c3

— •

(S®W)

I'evtdscH

(S9^p)

ccspjy

pS/artlcJ

80tT9T0g

jc PT9TI

o

vO

o

y—

r~

Pj-

o

rj-

«>•

1

ON

cv

CO

0*

vO

p»

vD

o

n (0 to co co

I* £&& >>

(l, _ a, Oi a, s,

ra a: ih

>, ,a -p o

^ ®c®

a, ® s So

® j?

-p PU

c

-P -O -P

ta -P c a

2 t> a

K C UH
M M C
n M,a

® t> d o

S® « ®
-i. t— 3

.3 D . ® S) | >, O

ojo ® ® c o m .a G

>>-P -P >» ® -P E a, -P

£ c cpojoc® o

Ok -P -P Pk G.-P to hp,

W W <0 VI O

<P _ >,<P Q >,ip -P <p

05 -H O e -H O O O

o as -p as 3

-P a . p<« P3P

a o pm c ® c ®

CO O G Vt O G O C

OMOC3MOM

sItTi qor

uap^Bcnpg

G

10

>

£

5

3

<3

QJ

•"S

QJ

^5

CJ

*”3

WTH

JO

a s

Sp 3 3

rt rH >S

C/3 jH * Aj
"3 > >

£ .-3 3 3

c a33 a

O >H S3 \£ li

“• o g o o

S o

£k kS «
-5 >
«o a
O ® pH

I

79

lloscou

lloscou

(lloscou

jo **tTO

ir\ o-s

£\ 3 o 3 S

f- O 1- O o

y o o

m © •• Cl tl

0 3 >C

c r f. C

•H £* f» U

351 S3 g g ^ g ^ g
8 S -a -3 88-^8
^5<2 3 j 5 £ £ JS 5

co r** f*- -^co cm

•o ?"• ^ >w ^

Q\ Qv 0s <7^ O 0s

(*n*p)

micisoH

(sa^ep)
CCS •?.!<£

paS-iry

a a •

o

® ® iH

a>

.C

■P -P O

•P 6h

-P

R

-p -p a

© a
c ©

£

00 CO

vi a

M ^

o

■p

» S O o

2l ©

o

CO

S

O ° ,Tj
o o -P a
a a a >,

O C
82

•P

©

<D

•C

assfi

^ o

fi

HI

•TVW qof

uof5.B=npa

opaxao

opiqia

jo ®a«a

£2

• ;*=:&

> 3 ^ W Oj

O -4 r-*3 CH ^

7 q C n 9

> i? ^ a 'a

•a p> > > >

M >Tm £

m~ Q •*

> » to — •.

g?

=? a j a a

0U H H vl J

2« w w 5 E3
k-» >

•a s*

« i-

Sfl 3

5r --

£ 5

:d — *— • ■ o

"■ a ^?a S
- s s Q a
>» .x o

■H >,-P «

g - <H «H

> M -P S V.

race: a

!•>•>• •>
•=*“— » •> 5»

> > - - h3

I O o «* M jj a

l 3 S O 3 3 r-t

•»-«•■ a a a

I — — ® Jh Sh M
i H H <tH Eh *h S

>

®«-*
>» *
c e >
N h a

2

•H M
3 pi
®

>»^
P«» O «r

• o •

hjij
M -H

JjS 35

‘g o

gas

see

3ma

3 - a

^ J 2

r*i M —

®

S

V 63
•H

> O S

S®

a a.

*W

> >*

O O -rt

3iJr I

« O _

•p x -p a

n a
® « S »

c » *’ >-l

Ol H4 t-t P3

a 3 » a

S3 to -

<*£h m as

sgi ss

3 o to m >

a « a a a

z a H -■ *J

>vr -h

C*- f- -a

* O ? O 3 3 *h 3
O 1- O f- O O WO

So o a > o v

aas -3a^a^5

s & 3 SO

O *— 0 0 r- 3

O O O O

ta .. n m « o

O “ 0 O 9 so

S 3 3 3 « 5

'a

c <r\

t* c-

SpO s 3

a:§i

J33S

'JO IN
P- P» P-
O' O O'

>* so so to CO CO
^ O vO o o o

(jN f^N

aoc?fog

JC PT3TJ

-P H O
CO « ® M
• CO T3 £-t
> I M
-P =3 G =5

<0 3 ® £ C

+3 +3 *3 SO ffl

a is « sJ b

-p s -p +» a 3

CO +3 to ffl -P
so fc» C Vi «
S C O 3h O h

OHO <D

o -P’O • -P Q,
to <o to a >o to g

o ® a o o a ®

t* u *r* c-i

3i+ti cor

U3f;scnp3

5 d

a, 3

j 5

o o

=» >

O . .

X X X
c H H «■
'jS !aS ^

O CO CO CO «
X 3 3 3 3

.3333

> > ;» X X

M O

c -P

§ 2

M >

a s<s

to ra

x x

k .9 3*

"T § 3 S cT

C ^ N JS o

q-=zx ca >

a c c c

I w 5H >S >i >-4

I

YuliuVSKlYn, Genni Jew bio] 1970 1970 Moscow

(wife of 041Mb AUCV)

YuSIlM, 1( Mat! 1968 1963 Moscow

YbSKA, Alfonsns Llth biol 1973 1973 Vil'nyus

Z U»h AltOV, V Ye 10*11 Phyt 1968 1968 Uovoeibi

3. RESULTS

Results for the "date of birth" variable are presented in Graphs 1
and 2. Graph 1 shows that nearly 505 of all dissident scientists for
whoa there was data (124, or about 22;* of the total) were born within a
thirteen year period, from 1930 to 1942. What tnis means is that half
of the dissident scientists in the sample share common experiences:
childhood during at least one of the dual horrors of the Stalinist purges
and World War II; absence of a father for significant periods of time,
either because of the purges or the war; and secondary school, university
or graduate school during the post-Stalinist "Thaw." During the "Thaw"
(195o-58) and the liberalization period after it (to 1984), the young
scientists in this generational group would have been old enough to app¬
reciate the political and cultural freedoms then becoming available (the
youngest would have been 14 in 1956, the oldest 3^ in 196**) and presumably
idealistic enough to believe in ae-Stalinization.

Graph 2 indicates that nearly two-thirds of the same sample began their
aissiaence between the ages of 24 and 41, with the greatest concentration
from 28 to 32 years of age, 28? of the sample. In fact, only 29? of the
sample were between the ages of 42 and 76. This might suggest a procliv¬
ity for dissidence among scientists at relatively early stages in their
careers, certainly within the first twenty years.

It is interesting to note that relatively few dissident scientists
were active scientists during the Stalin era, when physics and cnemistry
were rigidly controlled and genetics and cybernetics suppressed. It may
be that there is a lingering fear of repression in the minds of these
scientists, and it might be, too, that the one3 most likely to have dis¬
sented were killed in the purges of the late 1930's. If one considers
a date of birth of 1921 or earlier to be appropriate for scientists who
would have been active during most of the period 1941-53, only 24? of the
scientists in this sample were from this generational group.

What can be said about those people born during or after the war, 1942
to 1951? They would not have remembered Stalin, they would not likely
have had a parent purged by Stalin, and they would have been adolescents,
secondary school and university students during the "Thaw" and the period
of liberalization. None would have entered the job market as a scientist
until after the liberalization period, and the threat of not getting or
keeping one's first job or getting expelled from school may have kept
many members of this generational group from speaking out in the late
19o0's. There were some exceptions, though. DANIEL, a physics student,
was in his last year of secondary school when he protested the Oinzburg-
Galanskov trial in 1968. 1 he was the son of convicted writer and dissi¬
dent Yuliy Danieni, though, and this fact was presumably a much greater
motivation to dissent than his age. Other members of this generation
dissenting in the late i960's were: G0E3AN', a physics student who
painted protests of tne Ginzburg-Galanskov trial on a number of buildings
in the Novosibirsk "Akademgorodok" in 1968 and -was expelled from school;^
.".Zl, ' UlkOV , a bioiogy student ir. his final year of university who signed a
petition at the Ginzburg-Galanskov court building in i960 and was expelled

03

Year of Birth

12 <( Graph 1

two months before graduation;^ MCTYL, a university cnenistry stunent
who actively supported the Crimean Tatar movement in l$c6 and was ex¬
pelled;1* FOtiZYeY, a university biology student who was a member of a
revolutionary Marxist group and was arrested in 19o9;5 and RIPS, a fi¬
nal year university matnematics student who set himself afire in 19o 9

protest the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia. ° These examples,

■ever, seemed to be the extent of the dissent in the 19cG's of this
generation. Witn only few exceptions, the most notable of which is
ShchARAIiSKIY , this generation has not been particularly active in the
1970's, even though it had., at this point, reached the 26-37 age range,
which, for the 1930-41 generation, was one of tne most common age spans
for scientists initiating dissident activity.

If one looks at the generation of future scientists, those born after
1952, can anything be determined from their common childhood experiences
that might cause them to dissent? They would not have been old enough
to remember Stalin, the '’Thaw" and period of liberalization would not
have affected them to a significant degree, as the eldest of this gener¬
ation would have been only in elementary school, ana their secondary
school and university experiences under Brezhnev's nonpermissive tutelage
would have made them aware that official persecution accompanied all out¬
breaks of dissidence. More importantly, though, this is the generation
that has grown up with the dissident movement. Members of this genera¬
tional group, the oldest of which would have been only 14 years of age
at the beginning of the dissident movement in 19t>o, have witnessed the
continued existence of dissidence, despite governmental crackdowns, from
early childhood. This experience may reflect on their proclivity for
dissidence in the future.

Chart 1 provides information on the ethnic origin of lbl scientists,
about 281 of all the dissident scientists in this study. The vast major¬
ity of the scientists on whom this data could be found were Jewish, pre¬
sumably because of the nature of the Jewish dissident movement, in whicn
ethnic origin is a major issue and is clearly identified. It is unlikely,
though, that for purposes of extrapolating the ethnic origin of all diss¬
ident scientists these correlations are valid, for there are probably few
additional known dissident scientists who have not revealed their Jew¬
ish ethnicity by requesting emigration. Even for those twelve Jews wno
did not seek emigration but whose ethnic origin was identified through
otner sources, the fact that they were Jewish could have been ascertained,
in almost every case, by their family names; if we loos at the family
names of other scientists for whom ethnic data was not available, perhaps
another sixty could be estimated as "Jewish." Thus, at the most, about
301 of dissident scientists in this study are Jewish. Sarghoorn, inci¬
dentally, quotes a figure of 60-7015 of all dissidents in the "democratic"
movement as being Jewish or married to Jews, 7 Although data on marriages
to Jews was not considered in this study, the percentage is certainly not
reflective of the dissident scientists in this study.

Only nine scientists were found to oe of Crimean Tatar orie-in, a fig¬
ure vnich would probably be unchanged if data on all this study's dissi¬
dent scientists were available, due to tne distinctive nature of family
names among that rroup. The same could probably be said of tne numbers
of dissident scientists of Polish, Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian

oo

■background; possibly an additional five Armenians could be included on
tne oasis of their family names. What this probably means is tnat the
majority of dissident scientists are of Eastern Slavic ethnic background-
russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian. Dissiaence could not, then, be
traced to ethnic discrimination in the majority of cases.

Chart 2 summarizes the data on the religious orientation of dissident
scientists. Despite the fact that Parry asserts that religious scientists
were rare,o twenty-two were found to be believers, among whom were such
prominent dissidents as AL'3REKhT, T. VELIKANOVA, TVERDOKhLESOV , AnAFARE-
VlCh, NAZAR YaN , KAPITANChUK, BEGUN and AGURSKIY. Only six were founa to
be confirmed atheists, but, because of the size of the sample and the
paucity of data, this is probably not reflective of tne number of atheists
among dissident scientists. It is difficult to estimate how many more of
the scientists are religious. TURChIN asserts that "many young people
with a highly-developed religious element in their make-up have a leaning
towards science and become scientists," but he defined religion as "any
system of supra-personal values shoving an individual the way to a higher
meaning of being," which may or may not include membership in an organized
religion. 9 Since being religious in the Soviet Union is not a personality
characteristic encouraged by the authorities, it would make sense for sci¬
entists who are religious to keep this fact hidden. One mignt assume,
however, tnat after the scientist had entered the dissident movement the
persecution would be implemented regardless of his orientation, and that
he might reveal his religious sentiments at the start of his persecution,
either to unite with other religious dissidents or to gain the support
of Western religious groups. If this were the case, then, there are
probably few additional religious dissident scientists from all of the
scientists in this study.

Chart 3 indicates that there were more Candidates of Sciences than
Doctors of Sciences among dissident scientists at a ratio of about 3:2.
Chart U reveals, however, that among all scientists holding advanced de¬
grees tne ratio of Candidates to Doctors is about 7:1, so the dissident
scientist community includes a significantly high number of Doctors of
Sciences. This result is somewhat surprising in that the Doctor of Sci¬
ences degree is usually awarded to tne older, more experienced scientists
(see Chart 5), and according to Graph 1, most of the dissidents were
younger tnat 40 years of age at the time of tneir first dissident act.
how could this be explained? It might be that many of the young dissi-
aents are doctors but received tneir degrees at earlier ages tnan normal,
i.e. the best and the brightest of tne young scientists. Another reason
for the large number of doctors might be that doctors assume that they
have more leeway to hold different opinions from those officially ex¬
pounded by virtue of their own scientific worth and achievements; hence,
they might dissent with little fear of repercussions.

The largest number of advanced degrees was in the field of the physico-
mathematical sciences, indicating that the majority of dissident scientists
who hold advanced degrees are physicists or mathematicians. It is inter¬
esting to note that the proportion of dissident scientists holding ad¬
vanced decrees in physico-mathematical sciences is over twice tnat of all
scientists holding the same degrees; thus, there are twice as many physi¬
cists and mathematicians involved in dissidence as could nave been predict-

ea on the oasis of relative numbers of scientists holding advanced de¬
grees in various scientific specialities.

Chart o indicates that about the same number of dissident scientists
wonted in university teaching positions as did in active researcn posi¬
tions. Relatively few dissident scientists held administrative posi¬
tions, but a significant number of the scientists were academicians or
corresponding members of one of the academies of sciences. The jobs held
by dissident scientists seem to be primarily in the middle and upper lev¬
els: over half of those involved in education Jobs were professors, and
nearly twice as many researchers were Senior Scientific Associates as
were Junior Scientific Associates. The participation of members of the
various academies of sciences undoubtedly added a measure of prestige and
legitimacy to the dissident movement. Only one of the academy members,
corresponding member of the Armenian Academy of Sciences, ORLOV, has suf¬
fered critical wrath to any great extent. SAKhAROV, of course, has been
harassed, but has not been arrested or imprisoned.

From Chart 7 it is clear that the majority (55%) of organizations at
which dissident scientists have worked are subordinate to one of the acad¬
emies of sciences, and that relatively few (23%) are subordinate to min¬
istries not connected with education. In terms of personnel, just half
of ^11 the dissident scientists in this sample work, at an academy of sci¬
ences institute, while only 11% work at non-educational ministries. Chart
5 indicates that just kl% of all scientific institutes are subordinate to
academies of sciences, and that k5% are subordinate to non-educational .
ministries. This means that the academy of sciences institutes are mod¬
erately over-represented in the dissident scientist community, and the
non-educational ministries are significantly under-represented. The edu¬
cational ministries were about twice as numerous among those entities em¬
ploying dissident scientists ss might have been expected from the rela¬
tive number of institutes ir te educational ministries. These correla¬
tions vould lead one to bel. ve that there is something inherent in the
academy of sciences and the educational ministries that attracts, causes,
or encourages dissidents, while there is something in the non-education¬
al ministries that appalls, discourages, or subdues them.

The Academy of Sciences USSR has administrative control over 1^£ of
all scientific institutes in the USSR, but 32 % of all institutes at v..icu
dissident scientists have worked have been subordinate to tae Acaaemy.

This may indicate that tne Academy of Sciences USSR provides the most con¬
ducive atmosphere for dissidents, or creates dissidents, or simply at¬
tracts those scientists who eventually become dissidents, ft variety of
reasons could be suggested for the selection of an Academy of Sciences
USSR institute as a place of work: better pay and perquisites, more pres¬
tige, Moscow location (555 of all the Academy of Sciences USSR institutes
in this study were based in Moscow), priority given to theoretical and
basic researcn, and a more liberal intellectual atmosphere. The Academy
probaoiy also attracts the best ana the brightest of those scientists who
do not want to get involved in research which is overly-ciassif iea and
compartraented, wnich would be the case in the non-educational ministries.

Thart 9 shows tne institutes vitn a significant (five or over) numoar

of dissidents, a fact that has no doubt been brought to the attention of
the respective institute directors by the appropriate Soviet authorities.
One night speculate as to the meaning of a relatively large number of
dissidents in a specific institute: lax security, loose Party control,
and administrative tolerance, or the reverse - very strict administrators,
tight security measures, and overall repression. It could further be
suggested that measures have been taken by the respective institutes to
correct this situation, and it may be that these institutes are nov mod¬
els of decorum. It is significant that most are located in Moscow and
are subordinate to an educational ministry or the Academy of Sciences
USSR. Even more interesting is that two of these institutes are subor¬
dinate to the State Committee on the Peaceful Use of Atomic Energy, an
employer which for security reasons would not ordinarily be tnought to
be lenient with or tolerant of dissidents.

Chart 10 reveals that the greatest concentration of dissident scien¬
tists was in the field of mathematics. This is probably due to the VOL'-
PIN arrest in 1$68 which elicited support by eighty-seven matnematicians .
It may be, though, that the number of dissident scientists in the field
of physics represents a greater proportion of committed dissident scien¬
tists, for only twelve of the eighty-seven mathematicians dissenting in
19b8 repeated a dissident act after VOL'PIJf’s arrest. There was no one
dissident act supported by physicists comparable to the VOL ' PIN dissent,
so it is likely that there are more physicists than mathematicians com¬
mitted to the dissident movement in general.

Why would there be, in any c$se, more dissident scientists in mathe¬
matics and physics than in chemistry, biology and geology? Chart 11
shows that under half of all scientists were involved in mathematics and
physics, while over two-thirds of the dissident scientists were in these
fields. It may be that the best and brightest of Soviet scientists went
into physics and mathematics; mathematics might have been chosen for its
abstract, non-idiological nature, and physics may have been attractive
for the substantial financial support given it by the government and the
resulting high quality research facilities (although physics was not
ideologically neutral). ^ Salisbury offers a theory that the mode of
thinking engendered in physics is conducive to intense questioning ana,
presumably, dissent:

There is clearly something about the discipline of
physics that causes a great physicist to look be¬
yond the formulas, the theorems, the infinitely
intricate hypotheses by which he tests and deter¬
mines the natural laws of tne universe and into
the seemingly simpler but actually more complex
pnenomena of man's society. Or, perhaps, this is
illusion. Perhaps it is simply that with their
finely tuned minds the physicists are able to
penetrate more swiftly and more deeply the mum
and bias with which human beings normally snrcua
tneir affairs.il

Altnougn the relative number of biologists in tne USSR .1 ■ „s*.
tnirds tnat of chemists, tnere are twice as many dissident .

are biologists as those who are chemists. This ooulu res: . - .
ed ov tne fact that biolcgy has suffered greatly :r. re.’v:.*

particularly in the field of genetics, and that biologists are incensed
by this ideological interference.

Chart 12 indicates that the majority of dissident scientists in the
sample vere members of the Communist Party or the Komsomol (o8i)t voile
only 10% vere anti -Party Marxists, i.e. those who would dissent for po¬
litical reasons.' Non-Party scientists, who made up 22% of all dissident
scientists in the sample, are probably ostracized to some extent even
without performing dissident acts. The decision not to Join tne Party,
too, might be considered an act of defiance on its own. Such decisions
would be made by scientists with full knowledge of the consequences:
more difficult career advancement, reduced travel opportunities, and
administrative distrust. The same motivation benind the decision not to
Join the Party, then, might be behind the motivation to dissent.

Although Soviet dissident scientists are probably not much different
from the rest of Soviet society in terms of the effect of the Stalinist
purges on their families, it is none the less interesting to note the
number of scientists affected (Chart 13): KOSTLPINA, whose father was
imprisoned, ^2 TALANTOV, whose father was killed, 13 GASTEV, whose father
vas shot in 1938, l1* AGURSKIY, whose father vas arrested in 1936 and ex-.
iled,15 AL ' BREKhT , whose father vas arrested in 1937 ana shot in 1938,10
LANDA, whose father vas arrested in 1932 and asain in 1937, and died in
1939,17 VAKhTIN, whose father vas imprisoned, 18 MEDVEDEV, whose fatner
vas arrested in 1938 and died in 1941,^-9 and GESXIN, whose fatner was
killed. 20 Among those scientists who vere themselves pursed were D.
AZBEL', BAEBOY, "GASTEV, 0. KVAChEVSKIY , MYuGE, ShAFAKEVICh, VEPRUiTsaV,
end VIL'YaKS. It is not at all unlikely that the experience all these
scientists had with tne Stalinist purges in one way or another influenced
their decision to dissent in the I960’ s. and 1970's.

Graph 3 indicates that the number of dissident scientists in prison
has steadily declined since 1972. The same can be said for the numoer of
dissident scientists in psychiatric hospitals, per Graph 4. Graph 5 snows
that the number of dissident scientists arrested per year was tne greatest
between the years 1967 and 1972 and has fallen off to less than naif tne
pre-1972 rate in recent years (1977-76). what this would mean in terms
of motivation for dissidence is that the scientist dissenting for tne
first time after 1972 probably had less fear of arrest and imprisonment
tnan did those scientists dissenting prior to 1972. This relative offi¬
cial tolerance might have prompted some scientists to dissent because the
risk vas no longer as great.

. Chart 14 indicates that, as expected, the greatest number of dissident
scientists in the Soviet dissident movement vas in 1968, when the Gins-
burg-Galanskov and VOL' PIN protest letters vere signed. It is quite sig¬
nificant, though, that the number of new dissident scientists per year
has remained remarkably stable since 1963, around twenty-five per year.

One could conclude, then, that the authorities' attempt to scare the rest
of the scientific community into submission - by denouncing and firing
those scientists who signed the 19bS protest letters - vas not completely
successful. It could be argued, in fact, that the dissident scientists
appearing after 1966 had stronger convictions and commitment, since they
presumably recognized the consequences of their dissident actions. Tne

1968 protest letter signers , however, probably did cot realize that they
would be persecuted for their actions. The fact that the 1966 protest
letter signers were not confirmed dissidents can be seen in the small
number of that who continued to dissent (the recidivists) after I960:
only forty of those who had dissented prior to or during 1966 continued
to take part in dissident activities. Vith this smaller number in mind,
one can see that the twenty or thirty scientists becoming dissidents
each year subsequent to 1966 is quite significant.

Chart 15 shows that the majority of dissident scientists lived in
Moscow. Significant numbers are also found in Kiev, Leningrad, Novo¬
sibirsk and the Baltic republics. It is not at all surprising that the
dissidents came from these areas, as the main scientific institutes of
the country are located there. Additionally, the nature of "samizdat"
is such that the greatest amount of information would have been obtain¬
ed about people living in or near the major population centers. If one
were to find a motivation for dissidence provided by place of residence,
it might reside in the fact that these cities are European, with the
looser and freer atmosphere that would allow scientists to express their
views privately without reprisal and could lead them into dissident ac¬
tivities. The opportunities for finding like-minded, politically astute
fellows would, in any case, be more readily available in such cities.

It might seem surprising that the number of dissident scientists is
not particularly high in the "science cities,” where it might be expect¬
ed that the high concentration of scientists in relatively isolated areas
would lead to active dissidence*. One Soviet citizen, in fact, shared
this view:

Whatever (the authorities') purposes may be, a thou¬
sand scientists, a thousand intellectuals gathered
together in a single small town will create a fantas¬
tic effect! In such intellectual greenhouses a new
pnilosonhy of Russian life may suddenly spring into
being! 2l

Popovsky writes, though, that despite all the good intentions, the "sci¬
ence city" scientists have lapsed into the same hierarchic and careerist
frameworks that their "big city" colleagues enjoy and exist in, and that
the "science cities" do not offer the intellectual salvation once assoc¬
iated vith them.

Chart 16 snows that the majority of the dissident scientists have
emigrated or defected between the years of 1973 and 1977. There are
probably a very great number of Jewish scientists who have emigrated
without dissenting, and these scientists are not included in the table,
as cne "samizdat" sources mentioned only those Jews vho had experienced
difficulty in emigrating and vho had protested their treatment at the
hands of the emigration authorities. Appendix III lists all those Jewish
scientists who are seeking emigration but vho have not yet been allowed
to leave.

91

CM 1

Ethnic Origin cf Dissident Scientists

(Saz^lei 164)

Ethnic Origin

Number of Scientists Percent of Sample

Jewish 120
Russian 17
Crimean Tatar 9
Lithuanian 7
Ukrainian 5
Armenian 2
Estonian 2
Polish 1
Latvian 1

73S

1051

5S

4£

35;

1?

I5i

CHART 2

Religious Orientation of Dissident Scientists

( Sample t 28)

Religion Number of Scientists

Judaism 5

Christian (unspecified) 4
Catholic 3

Orthodox 7

Protestant 1

Baptist 1

3uddhism 1

Atheist

6

92

!

Level of Education Among Dissiaent Scientists

university Diploma Only
Candidate cf Sciences
joctor of Sciences

22 ( }')

12S ( 51*5 )

oy (11/))

Number Of

Le.rree In

Candidates

Pnysico-l-'at aer.at i c al

luo

Sciences

biological Sciences

lb

Chemical Sciences

r\

Geological Sciences

3

CHAET 4

Number Of

Doctors 'Totals

76

lwi£

(ooi)

15

£9

(135)

3

1 “

( 55)

1

b

( 25)

(Source: 2. Zaleski et al, Sci
eace Policy in the li£3E . Paris
OCID, 19b9, pp ll*o-14y)

Level of Advanced Education in the Scientific Community (iyop)

Decree In

Number Of
Candidates

Number Of
Doctors

Total

Phys ico-;«iathenatical
Sciences

0

12151

1637

13768

(355)

Biological Sciences

10557

I0U7

12204

(315)

Chemical Sciences

7632

643

SU75

(215)

Geological Sciences

kk&h

31*624 (88%)

763

4090 (125)

p2b 7

(135)

CSAK7 5

(Source: Zaleski, p 336)
Percentage of Doctorates Avarded 19^7-55 Ey Age

Under 39

14. 85

LO -

b9

ho. 2%

50 -

59

29.25

Over

oO

7.35

93

chart 6

Jobs Held by Dissident Scientists

( samples

Type of Job Humber of Scientists Feroentege

Education 104

Professor

59

(57$)

Docent

20

09$)

Assistant

3

( 3$)

pg

Teacher

18

Graduate Student

4

Research

Senior Associate

107

47

(44$)

Junior Associate

29

(27$)

Engineer

3-1

(29$)

Administrative

Director

29

3

(10$)

Department Head

6

(21$)

Laboratory Head

19

(66$)

Group Head

*

1

( 3$)

Acade&y

Academician

22

14

(64$)

Corresponding Member

S

(36$)

42$

43$

12$

9$

94

CHART 7

Institutional Subordination of Dissident Scientiats

( sample > 123 Institut#V256 acient

iata)

Subordination

Humber of Institute a
(Percent of Total)

Acadery of Sciences USSR 39 ( 329)

( excluding Siberian Dept)

Siberian Department, Academy 8 ( T%)
of Sciences USSR

Ukrainian Academy of Sciences 10 ( 8?)

Latvian Academy of Sciences 4 ( 3?)

.Armenian Academy of Sciences 2 ( 2%)

Georgian Academy of Sciences 1 (1%)

Lithuanian Academy of Sciences 1 (1%)

Moldavian Academy of Sciences 1 (1$)

.Academy of Medical Sciences USSR 4 ( 35*)

of Ministers USSR
.All-Union Ministries
Union-Republic Ministries
( non-Sduca tional)
Union-Republic Ministries
(Educational)

Republic Ministries

Republic Ministries
( non-Sducational)
Republic Ministries
(Educational)

Humber of Dissident Scientists
(Percent of Total)

39

(32?)

92

(36?)

8

( 7?)

11

( 4?)

10

( 8?)

14

( 5?)

4

( 3?)

4

( 2?)

2

( 256)

2

( 1?)

1

(1?)

1

1

(1?)

1

1

(1?)

1

l 4

( 3?)

7

( 3?)

8

( 7?)

21

( 8%)

4

( 3?)

6

( 2?)

13

(11?)

15

( 6?)

2

( 2?)

35

(14?)

•2

( 2?)

2

( 1?)

24

(20?)

44

(17?)

CHART 3

Institutional Subordination in the Soviet Scientific Community

(samples 1200)

Subordination Humber of Institutes

(Percent of Total)

Academy of Sciences USSR

162

(142)

Siberian Department, Academy

36

( 3%)

of Sciences USSR

All republic Academies of

284

(242)

Sciences

Academy of Medical Sciences USSR

39

( %)

Union-Republic and Republic

136

(112)

Ministries (Educational)

State Committee for Atomic Energy

13

( 12)

All other ministries and committees

530

(442)

(source* Director/ of Soviet Research Crggnlz;
, Washington, D.C.: national Foreign Assessment
Center, March 1973)

CHART 9

Institutes with Five or iiore Dissident Scientists

Moscow State University 33

Institute of Mathematics imeni Steklov, Moscow 10

Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow 7

Institute of Atomic Energy, Moscow 7

Latvian State University, Riga 7

Institute of Chemical Physics, Moscow 6

Institute of Physics of the Atmosphere, Moscow 6

All-Union Institute of Scientific and Technical Information, Mac ow

Institute of Problems of Information Transmission, Moscow 6

Kiev State University 5

96

tions

CHART 10

Field of Science of Dissident Scientists

(Sample: *+39)

Field of Science

Mathematics

Physics

Biology

Chemistry

Geology

Astronomy

Number of Scientists

133

11*1

88

hk

27

6

Percentage of Total

392

282

182

95

52

15

CHART 11

Field of Science of All Scientists (1 96?)

(Sample: H*0662)

Field of Science dumber of Scientists Percentage of Total

Mathematics & Physics

Chemistry

Biology

Geology

63060

1*55

33531*

21*2

27027

192

loUUl

122

(Source: ZalesAi, p. 193)

CHART 12

Party Affiliation of Dissident Scientists

( Sample : 59 )

Communist Party

23

(392)

Non-Party

13

(222)

Marxist, Non-Party

6

(102)

Komsomol

17

(292)

CHART 13

Purged Dissident Scientists

and Their

1 Families

Father Purged

6

Scientist Himself Purged

6

Brother Purged

1

C E132 14

h’uaber of Dissident Scientists in Dissident llovenent per fear

(scientists in prison ore not included for dotes of
their inprisonment, nor are they counted as first-
tine dissenters when they return)

(known - 4261.

err i c? rzsilzmci

Moscow

Kiev

Leningrad
3aitic Republics
Riga
Vilnyus
Tartu
Kaunas
Tallin

Science cities

Novosibirsk
Obninsk
Pushchino
Sverdlovsk
Chemogolovka
Dbbna
Serpukhov
Krasnaya Pakhra
Tbilisi
Tashkent
Kharkov
Srevan
Samarkand
Vladivostok
Ulan Ude
Gorkiy
Krasnoyarsk
Odessa
Lvov
Baku
Saratov
Kaliningrad
Minsk
Sevastopol
Rostov
Chernovtsy
Vinnitsa
Kirov
Kalinin
Uzhgorod
Stavropol

-300-

42

33

27

13

7

3

3
1

42

24

4

5
3
2
2
1
1

4

3

4
3
2
2
2

3

2

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

iVunter of Dissident Scientists Emigrating Per Year

Year

Number Of
Scientists

Percent Of
Total Emigration

101

-w^ter of ’

Dual fcer of

^Mliant Solan t

135S *> ^'Chlatnc

Dissident

\>

Scientists .

U;

lrr8!rt=1 or Horoltalj,

cospitais

1^

ufi 1J-JI

4. conclusions

Wnat conclusions can be reached on the causes of dissideace anonz sci¬
entists? One is that the scientist's iiff experience placed a role in
the scientist's decision to dissent - a significant number of the dissi¬
dents in this study had grown up under ooth Stalin and Khrushcnev and aad
attended secondary school or university during tne "Tnaw" and period of
iioeralization (195 6-6U). It was also found that the age of the scien¬
tist played a role, that tne overwhelming majority of those dissenting
for the first time were between the ages of twenty-four and forty-one -
over a quarter of them were between the ages of twenty-eight and thirty-
two. The psychological reasons for dissent at these aces are beyond the
expertise of the author, but it could be suggested that job dissatisfac¬
tion, an awakened moral responsibility for one's privileged position in
life, or an attempt to banish middle-aged enui by political risk-taxing
might be reasons for dissent at these ages. One Soviet sreodesist who de¬
fected in 1957, Lev Predtechevsky (not included in this study) explained
nis decision to defect as being motivated by a feeling of guilt, taat once
ne had reached the middle strata of the Soviet elite he began to taink of
others :

I naa until tnea been too preoccupied with my studies
and my struggle up that ladder. Till that point, I
had had time and thought for my books and instruments
only. But now I was successful and, for a young man
in my position, quite well off - and I began to feel
guilty'.22

As the above quote makes clear, success in one's Job also plays a role
in the decision to dissent or, in Predtecaevsky ’s case, defect. The dis¬
sident scientists in this study are, for the most part, successful scien¬
tists in relatively senior positions: Senior Scientific Associates, Pro¬
fessors, and as often as not Doctors of Sciences. Whether guilt is the
psychological motivation, or whether it is a sense of social responsibil¬
ity, it is still clear that doing well in one's Job has been the rule as
far as dissident scientists are concerned, not tne exception. Dissidence
has not, apparently, been the result of problems with one’s job. It must
be pointed out here that Jewish scientists have been subjected to admin¬
istrative actions which aave made their scientific research mucn harder
to conduct, but it is significant that many of them nave continued to car¬
ry out their research and attend scientific conferences. They were not,
then, dissatisfied with their work, and the fact tnat they attempted to
continue it despite all oaas reflects a commitment to science. In other
words, dissiaent scientists, Jews and non-Jews alike, have not turned to
dissent because they nave been dissatisfied with tneir chosen profession,
science; rather, they have turned so dissidence, in some respects, because
of their commitment to science which forced them so oppose arbitrary re¬
straints on their work.

?or religious scientists, Soviet official repression of relision pre¬
sumably contributed to the scientists' decision to dissent. The autaori-
sies probably had a hard time taemselves resolving tne paradox of a man of
science rejecting scientific materialism for setapaysical religion, in

113

4

particular scientists of the stature of TVSEDOKhl/fTBOV , ShAFAE£VICh, and
AL'BREKhT. Presumably the authorities would prefer that religion, if it
must remain in Soviet life, be confined to the older, the superstitious,
and the less-educated citizens. With the appearance of well-educated sci¬
entists publicly affirming their faith in a Higher Being, though, the myth
of the incompatibility of religion and science is dashed, and the attrac¬
tiveness of religion is enhanced for the young and well-educated.

The affiliation of the scientist's institute and his field of science
seem to be less causes of dissidence than they are reflections of tne sci¬
entist's own mindset. A liberal scientist, i.e. one prone to dissent,pre-
sumably would choose a relatively liberal institute in which to work, and
would probably choose theoretical, rather than applied, research because
of the greater freedom and less security matters involved with the form¬
er. Institutes subordinate to the academies of sciences are more apt to
be concerned with theoretical work than are institutes subordinate to the
ministries, so the scientist vould probably choose to go to the academies
to work. The field of science, likewise, is a choice made on tne basis
of one's preferences and per suas ions. It may be that the logical, intense¬
ly-questioning minds are drawn to mathematics and physics, the more exper¬
imental and practical will choose chemistry and biology, and those most
interested in the application of science will take cybernetics and geolo¬
gy: the proclivity for dissent might be inversely proportional to the ap¬
plicability of the science to everyday life. Those choosing biology,
though, realize that they are selecting a field that was taboo in tne cot
so distant past. It may be that those who got involved in biology during
or after Lysen&oism are motivated by a messianic desire to return Soviet
biology to its proper place in world science, and that this scientific
messianism spills over into political dissidence.

Ethnic discrimination has been a cause of dissidence among scientists
who are Jewish, Crimean Tatar, Lithuanian, Armenian, Ukrainian and Eston¬
ian. What about the Russians who dissent, though? Does their ethnic
background influence their decision to dissent? It could be suggested
that tne Soviet nationality policy, which could be caaracterized as Great
Russian Chauvinism, might provoke in scientists of Russian descent a feel¬
ing of guilt because of the "privileged” nature of their nationality -
much as an American of WASP origin might feel responsibility and guilt for
policies directed against Americans of other ethnic backgrounds.

If the data on Party affiliation is representative, then it is clear
that dissidence, as a rule, is not a manifestation of anti-Cooaunist or
anti-Marxist feeling, since most of the dissident scientists were associ¬
ated with the Party. Very few of the dissident scientists have renouncei
socialism in favor of capitalism, fascism, monarchism, theocratism, or oth¬
er politico-economic systems. The cause of dissidence, then, might be dis¬
illusionment with the Party’s brand of Communism and Marxism. If one re¬
calls the democratic /human rights groups, their platforms called not for
the elimination of Party control but for the implementation by the Party
of all the provisions of the Soviet Constitution and Soviet lavs, A change
in the Party's behavior, then, might satisfy a number of dissident scien¬
tists.

The imprisonment and hospitalization data shows the constraints on

104

dissidence among scientists - prest jiy the more scientists in prison at
a given time, or the greater the nunoer of arrests o? dissident scienti3t3,
the greater the constraints on otner scientists not to dissent. Tills "fear
factor," nowever, has been significantly reduced since iy?k by tne aecline
in arrests of scientists for dissident activities. It cannot be forgotten
tnougn, that the scientists who nave been arrested since 1972 nave been
among the most active dissidents, so what the authorities are losing in
quantity of dissidents arrested they are making up in "quality."

The city of residence indicates that dissident scientists are relative¬
ly few and far between outside of the major Soviet cities, Joes place of
residence cause dissent, though, or, like place of work and field of sci¬
ence, aoes it only represent a personal choice which reflects the scien¬
tist's mindset? In other words, did the dissident-to-be scientist decide
to live in Moscow because of its relative liberal nature and urban mobili¬
ty suited his personality, or did Moscow, with its assorted enticements,
bewitch the scientist into becoming a dissident? The former seems the
more likely.

Other possible causes of dissidence, some of which reflect back to Chap¬
ter II, are professional ties with dissident scientists, elite upbringing,
and loss of parent in Stalinist purges. It would be difficult to deter¬
mine whether peer pressure in professional groups caused dissidence or
whether scientists of similar interests simply gravitated towards one a-
nother, the similar interests being dissatisfaction with Soviet society.

The motivation for children of the Soviet elite to dissent might be the
urge to gain the political power one * s • upbringing and background would
seem to deserve, guilt for one's privileged position in an allegedly class¬
less society, a sense of responsibility to one's family to preserve its
good name, or upper-class thrill-seeking. The loss of a family member in
the Purges would presumably leave the scientist with a profound antipatay
for tae Soviet system, and might make him feel morally bound to avenge tne
loss.

CONCLUSION

These last few pages of this study are devoted to a few summary state¬
ments and overall conclusions on the questions posed at the beginning: vno
are the dissident scientists, wnat nave tney protested, why have tney pro¬
tested, and what can be projected from this. This chapter is not intended
to oe merely a recapitulation of all the findings of the previous chapters;
the analyses ana concluding remarks in each chapter should serve such pur¬
poses. Rather, this chapter will toucn on the highlights of tne conclu¬
sions and then proceed to the crux of the matter, without vhicn all tae
data compilation has been futile: wnat predictions can be made on the ba¬
sis of this research concerning the future of dissidence in tne scientific
community. At tne end of this concluding chapter a few aft ert nougats and
reservations about this kind of researcn will be offered, surfacing, if
you will, as flotsam, for tne possible edification of researchers attempt¬
ing sucn a study in the future.

. Who are toe scientists who have dissented?

Dissident scientists nave been primarily mathematicians and physicists,
over half of whom held the doctorate degree, vno vere professionally vell-
esta'olished. More than one of every tvo dissident scientists worsen in
an institute subordinate to the Academy of Sciences; the same can be sain
for the number of dissident scientists vho lived in Moscow. Leas than a
quarter of dissident scientists have worked for ministries other than the
Ministry of Higher Education. One of every twenty was a member of the na¬
tional or a republican academy of sciences, and at least the same number
came from elite families. One of every five dissident scientists was Jew¬
ish. One out of every twenty joined a dissident group, usually as a found¬
ing member, and one out of every seven dissident scientists, regardless of
membership in a dissident group, was arrested or confined to a psychiatric
hospital for his dissidence. Nearly half of all the dissident scientists
investigated in this study dissented only in 1968; less than a fifth, ap¬
proximately one hundred scientists, vere determined to be actively involv¬
ed in the Soviet dissident movement as of 1977, and, by extrapolation, as
of 1979.

2. What have the dissident scientists protested?

At first scientists appealed for freedoms that directly affected their

work as scientists, such as frssjtom of Information and less restrictions
on scientific contacts. Although this appeal was never absenx. in subse¬
quent protests, it tended to be outweighed by the store universal appeal
for the defense of human rights. Scientists comprised over a third of the
members of the Moscow Helsinki Monitoring Group and a quarter of those in
toe various republican monitoring groups; the groups protested infractions
of the human rights articles in the Helsinki Accords. Other dissident
groups led by scientists, protested the arrests of prominent dissidents;
still others researcned the legal implications of the trials of dissidents.
Individual scientists, of course, also continued to protest the arrests
of dissidents and fellow scientists in collective protest letters. Reli¬
gious scientists have called for freedom of religion, Jewish scientists
have been joined by non-Jevish scientists in calling for freedom of mi¬
gration, and Crimean Tatar scientists have protested in favor of repatri¬
ation of tne Crimean Tatar people. Relatively few scientists, tnougn,
nave been involved in activities aimed at overthrowing the Soviet regime
or in activities employing illegal means.

i. Why have dissident scientists protested?

First of all, and quite obviously, dissident scientists protested

IGo

because taere was something to protest, i.e. historical events which
would nave provoked protest by any citizen of any country. Beyond that,
tnouca, dissident scientists were psychologically prone to dissent be¬
cause of certain personal and environmental factors (at least this was
toe assumption of the present study). What were these factors? Tne life
experience of people who had been bom between 1$30 and lyhS2, which in¬
cluded Stalinist purges, rdirushcnev' s liberalization, and areznnev's crack¬
down on dissident writers in the nid-i^cG ' s , seemed to provide a motiva¬
tion to dissent because of the ages of these people at these historical
junctures and tne clash of youtnful idealism and the Soviet reality. Ihe
elite upbringing of a number of the scientists might have caused dissi-
dence out of the desire for a share of the political power and the frustra¬
tion at not receiving any of it; the progenies of elite families may have
thought that they deserved more power than they got. Their high education¬
al level, too, might have caused the dissident scientists to believe that
they deserved better treatment and more say in the running of tne Soviet
system, particularly when they realized that the USSR's international sta¬
tus to a great degree depended on the level of Soviet science and tecnnol-
ogy. Residence in Moscow, too, may have been a factor which led to an act
of dissidence: most of the arrests of writers took place in Moscow, in¬
formation about dissidence presumably was widely circulated in Moscow, in
particular since foreign Journalists were stationed there, and Moscow, as
any large, international center, was relatively liberal, so the environ¬
ment was conducive for dissent. Jobs at Academy of Sciences institutes,
likewise, provided the kind of liberal environment that might have pro¬
duced a proclivity toward dissent.

•

What about the assertion, made by many scientists, that the scientist's
mode of thinking is incompatible with the arbitrariness evidenced in to¬
talitarian regimes and politicians? As was mentioned in the introduction
to this study, to prove or disprove this assertion is outside the scope of
the study, for research on this topic would require data on all scientists,
not Just dissidents. However, the special nature of the scientific mind
has been given as a reason for dissidence by the dissidents themselves.
Thus, IiYuBARSKIY explained his interest in "samizdat" by affirming that
in the very nature of the scientist is the striving to
create one's own opinion about a problem. . .Ihe scien¬
tist cannot take any opinion or other from the side¬
lines. The essence of the scientist is the need to
inow everything oneself.^-

0. 0SMAM0V stated that "physics doesn't hinder me, rather, it helps me be
a citizen;"2 likewise, PLYuShch was described by another dissident in the
following maimer:

The lack of conformism and the deep intellectual hon¬
esty characteristic of PLYuShch the scientist were
characteristic of his usual behavior in life. 3
What these dissidents don't explain is why, if the mindset of the scien¬
tist causes dissidence, all scientists are not dissidents. The answer
to tnis question is that additional motivations and psychological factors
are necessary to make the "potential" dissident an actual one. This stua-
y has provided the data on what these motivations might be.

107

4. What does all this mean?

It is relatively safe to conclude that, pending an act of God in tne
rlrenlin , repression in the USSR will continue as long as there are dis¬
sidents and dissidents will remain active as long as there is repression.
The autnorities have been unable to significantly decrease the numbers of
scientific dissidents, in particular, from 1969 to the present, regard¬
less of the degree of persecution. The regime, then, is faced vitn a di¬
lemma: should it maintain its tight control over Soviet scientists and
intellectuals, and risk international repercussions in matters of detente
and tecnnology transfer and internal disquiet vitnin the scientific com¬
munity, or should it give in to some of the human rignts demands of the
scientists to gain their support in developing Soviet science and tech¬
nology, vhich would, admittedly, decrease the regime's control over So¬
viet society. Obviously, the choice is not a simple or easy one: on tne
one hand, the regime needs the scientists in order to keep the USSR strong
tecnnologically; on the other, the regime, to maintain its power over the
Soviet people, cannot share its power or allow the scientists freedoms
wnich might encroach on the regime's power base. Since the regime would
probably accept technological backwardness more readily than a loss of its
power, it seems likely that official repression of scientific dissidents
will continue, probably at the relatively limited level of the post-1976
period. Any greater repression of dissident scientists would probaoly be
count er-product i ve in terms of US-USSR trade and detente. As it is, the
Soviet authorities are able to maintain civil relations with the West at
the same time they are refusing* to allow their scientists even a modicum
of intellectual and individual freedom.

What about numbers of future dissident scientists? Who will they be?
Who are their future leaders? Some projections can be made on the basis
of the data accumulated. First of all, in terms of numbers, it can be as¬
sumed that, because of the relatively steady nature of the numbers of dis¬
sident scientists per year since 1969 and the number of scientists who
dissent in any year in the forseeable future, barring a significant his¬
torical event, will be about one hundred. Because it was determined above
that scientists with dates of birth from 1930 to 1942 were most prone to
dissent, it might be that with the passing of the generation, dissidence
among scientists might decrease somewhat. If the age 65 is taken as an
age after which dissent is not likely to occur, for reasons of mortality
or otherwise, then this decrease should not become evident until tne year
2C0G. On the other hand, it was also determined above that a scientist
was most likely to dissent between the ages of 24 and 41. If this is tue
case, and the date of birth. correlation with dissidence is meaningful,
then there should have been an increase in the number of dissident scien¬
tists between the years 1954 and 1963, particularly from 19bl to 197o, when
the greatest numbers of scientists would have been in the 24-41 age group.
Clearly, historical circumstances played a role in the dissident movenent,
so this increase is not tied to age alone. The only point that could be
made here is that there might be a gradual decrease in the numbers of 11 s-
sident scientists from 1976 to 1963, after which there might be a signifi¬
cant decrease. Because data is incomplete after 1977 in this study, tnousn
no definite conclusion can be drawn on this.

108

The prospective dissident scientist should conform to the archetypical
dissident scientist described in section 1 of this chapter: he vill have
an advanced degree in paysico-mathematical sciences, vill work at an Acad¬
emy of Sciences institute in Moscow as a Senior Scientific Associate or
Professor, and will be a member of the Party; the chances are great that
he vill have been brought up in an elite family. Obviously, this is a
gross generalization, but it is a starting point.

The leaders of the future from the scientific community are many of tne
same old faces, but there are a number of dissident scientists vho have
had only relatively minor roles in the dissident movement up to tnis point
and vho may rise to assume higher positions. SAKhAROV vill continue to be
the most influential dissident scientist, even if the Academy of Sciences
removes SAKhAROV from its membership. TVZRDOKnLZBOV , vho returned from ex¬
ile in 1978, vill conceivably return to his former level of dissident ac¬
tivity. 7. VELIKANOVA, vho currently heads several of the dissident groups
vill probably continue to play a major role in toe dissident movement un¬
less she is arrested and prosecuted. KOVALZV and ORLOV , upon their release
from confinement in 1981 and 198b, respectively, vill probably return to
their dissident activities. The dissident scientists vno may ce called
upon in the meantime to fill in for CELOV, KOVALEV and ShchARANSKIY are
BAKhMIK, NAZAR YaN, KORChAX, !£YMAN, LAND A, FIKKEL ' ShTEYN , I. GOL'DShTEYN
and 0. GOLD ' ShTEYN , all of whom have had same organizational experience in
dissident groups. There are some dissident scientists vho have never as¬
sumed leadership roles, but, because they have been in the Soviet dissi¬
dent movement almost from its inception, might eventually become leaders
of dissident groups: DZEBAYeV^, GASTEV, GEKKIN, PETRENKO, LAVUT, LISOV-
SKAYa, ShchEGLOV, SKVIRSKIY and TIMAChEV.

Is there a chance that dissident scientists would ever coalesce into an
integrated pressure group, representing scientists? After all, one hun¬
dred people sharing professional Interests and goals could present a for¬
midable front. It is doubtful that this would occur because of the variety
of Weltanschauungen evidenced in the scientific cocssunity, from ShAFAEE-
VlCh's Russian chauvinism a la Solzhenitsyn, EEGEL'SON's and KAPITANChUK's
unshakable Christianity, and the Jewish refusenik's simple desire to emi¬
grate, to SAKhABOV's democratic humanism and RONKIN's revolutionary Marx¬
ism. As long as dissident scientists have a common enemy in the Soviet re¬
gime, however, and are persecuted, it is unlikely that different vorla out¬
looks would cause one scientist to undermine the position of another.

5 . Final Words

"I have came not to praise Caesar, but to bury him." What are sons of
the limitations of this study? First of all, as in any scientific or any
pseudo-scientific endeavour, the data is incomplete. Official Soviet and
even "samizdat" Soviet sources vere not able to provide enougn data of tne
type desired to completely analyze the dissident scientist phenomenon. It
must be assumed that numerous dissident scientists, even those vho vere of¬
ficially reprimanded, vere not known to the compilers of toe "samizdat"

109

4

documents and, accordingly, to tha author. Anotner shortcoming is that
the level or "degree" of commitment to dissent activity was not and prob¬
ably could not be determined; without such a determination, thougn, tne
signer of one collective protest letter assumes the same numerical weight
as does a SAKhAROV or ShchARANSKIY. The author is uncertain how such a
factor could be meaningfully determined. Other factors, such as marital
status, career aspirations, or previous military service, mignt have bean
as relevant to the causes of dissent as the ones chosen for this study.

The author, however, was limited to the data ava<i*bl*-

The author makes no pretense that his evaluation of tne data compiled
is complete. This study was designed additionally, to be a vehicle by
which the biographical data could be presented. Readers with access to
computers will undoubtedly find relationships hidden to the autnor due to
the number of variables involved. The author fully recognizes, though,
that such relationships evidenced in data may not have caused the dissi-
dence at all; in other words, the correlations may be interesting and
fascinating but meaningless in terms of the motivations to dissent. The
question of what factors were relevant and what factors were not relevant
must be left to the psychologist for a definitive view.

In conclusion, the author's goal was to document the participation of
the Soviet scientist in the dissident movement. He theorised that the
reasons that a certain scientist dissented could be found in that scien¬
tist 1 s biographical data, and this data was compiled. If the theory
turns out to be invalid, the data will not be tainted in the least. Ac¬
cordingly, this data Is offered, to other analysts to play with ae they
please, making models and establishing relationships. While the autnor
does not subscribe to the view that a secret key to human behavior lies
at the heart of every collection- of data, hi does believe that such studies
as the present one are useful, heuristic games to play which lead to the
discovery of trends not immediately obvious. If this study has uncovered
Just a few of these trends, the author will consider the game a success.

no

afpekdjz i

ESHTOISS AT TJRTPH USSHEUT • SCI EHTXSTS HATE HOUSES
(Humber of Scientists in parentheses)

Institute of ilathanatica imari Staklov, Leningrad (1)

Institute of Organic Chanistry imani Zelinskiy, Moscow (2)

Institute of Physical Problems imani e.I. Vavilov, Moscow (l)
tnsti.tu.te of-Ehyaica^ Moicow (3)

Institute of Geology and Geochronology of the Pre-Cambrian Ira, Leningrad (1)
Institute of Biological Physios, Pusnchino (4)

Institute of Physical Chemistry, Moscow (2)

Institute of Chemical Physics, Moscow (6)

Institute of ^lemanto-Crganic Compounds, Moscow (3)

Institute of Solid State Physics, Moscow (2)

Institute of Molacular Biology, Moscow (1)

Institute of Higher Nervous activity and NeuroPhysiology, Moscow (2)

Institute of Mathematics Irani Staklov, Moscow (10)

Institute of Physics of th# Atmosphere, Moscow (6)

Institute of Zoology, Leningrad (1)

Institute of Padioengineering and electronics, Moscow (1)

Institute of Petrochemical Synthesis imeni Topchiav, Moscow (3)

Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Hadiowave Propagation, *
Krasnaya Fakhra (2)

Institute of deaiconduotors, Leningrad (1)

Institute of Control Problems, Moscow (1;

Institute of electrochemistry, Moscow (1)

Institute of Plant Physiology imani Timiryazav, Moscow (2)

Institute of Psychology, Moscow (1)

Computer Centar, Moscow (1)

Institute of Water Problems, Moscow (1)

Institute of Biology of Development iaani Kol'tsov, Moscow (3)
Physico-Technicul desearch Institute, Obninsk (1)

Institute of Physics of the earth iaani shmidt, Moscow (1)

Institute of Thsoratical Physics iaani Landau, Cfcernorolovka (1)

Institute of Applied Ma them tic a, Moscow (4)

All-Union Institute of Scientific and Technical Infomaticn, Moscow (6)
Institute of Metallurgy iaani Baykov, Moscow (1)

Institute of Chemistry of Oiliest** imeiu ^n»h#nshchikov, Leningrad (1)
Leningrad Physicc-Techniccl Institute iaani loffa, «enini_rad (3)

Institute of Cytology, Leningrad (1)

Institute oi' ..arino Iiolo;-y, Vladivostok (2)

Institute of hiuh lamps rntures, Moscow (1)

Institute 0: ..utoration r.nc xeleaecnanics (1).

Inf-ti • •*' rroblscs o' Info ir..:i .1 rransaisaion, Moscow (6)

n

Insti'.uta or i ctheruitica, ..cvocicira* (3)
institute oi‘ Clerical Kinetics ant Corruption, .icrosioirsk (1)
Institute or Automation ana Electrometry, ..ovesioirsk (1)
Institute or semiconductor rnysics, JicvocitircK (1)

Institute or Catalysis, iiovcsibirsk (1) '

Computer Canter, *.ovosicirsk (2)

Institute or Physics imeni Kirenakij, Krasnoyarsk (1)
institute or Hydrodynamics, iiovosihirsk (1)

AClDS-tt OF CCI-l.C^a. UkraSR

Institute of Mechanics, Kiev (1)

Institute or ioology, &iov (4)

Institute or Mathematics, Kiev (2)

Institute or Physical Chord 0 try Irani Pisnrshevskij, Kiev
Institute of Cybernetics, Kiev (l)

Institute of Biology of Southern oeas inenl Kovalevski j , -Sevastopol (1)
Institute \jf semiconductors, Kiev (1)

Uudear Research Institute, Kiev- (1)

of ^ci2i:mn.

it ssxr

Institute or nlectronis and Ccmputinf-; Tacnnclo-'y, Higa (1)
Institute or Polymer Mechanics, Riga (1)

Institute of nuclear Physics, Riga (1)

Institute or Organic 'synthesis, ;iiga (l)

lorevan Institute of Physics (1)

Byurakan Astrophysical observatory, Byumkan (1)

Institute of Cybernetics, Tbilisi (1)

Institute or Physical and Technical Problems of Pover Engineering, Kaunas ( 1 ]
ABgg 0t~ aCS..C5a. MoldSSR

Institute or Oncology, Kishinev (1) '

112

ifunarr qf m_sicai aci^ncas. pssr

Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology iaeni Ganalsy, Moscow (3)
Institute of Virology iaeni Ivanovski j , Moscow (1)

Institute of Medical Radiology, Moscow (1)

Institute of Biological and Medical Chemistry, Moscow (2)

STUM CKHETTUS

CfflTiii on Inventions ana Discovs.ies oi the Council of •luj^t.jrs

Scientific Research Institute of the Connittae on XaventionSylSoscov (l)

r.rtwr!.ttee for St-^ndarig

All-Union Scientific Research. Institute of Metrology iasni Mendeler,

AU-UniS^entdUic Research Institute of *etrolo«y iaeni mrnuM*,
Leiilugraa ( 1 )

a~— kgMissas foT> atonic

Institute of Theoretical* and Experimental Physics, Moscow (7)
Joint Institute for- Muelear Research, Dubna (2)

Institute of Physics and Power Engineering, Obninsk (1)
Institute of Atonic Energy iaeni Kurchatov, Moscow (7)
Institute of High Energy Physics, Serpukhov (1)

W-T™T': HESaSM

fltatgfag ?CInstruaent SateSAfig

All-Union Scientific Rosaarch Institute of Developing iioncesbruuuive
| Methods and. Instrument* for quality Control, Kishinev (3)
[Scientific Research Institute of Introscopy, Moscow (i)

Mlaiaty.- of the Defense Industry

State Institute of Optics ineni Vavilov, Leningrad (1)

!:iniltr~ ‘;f the Gas I.idu.-rtrr

Ali—InicnScientific Research Institute of Main Pipeline
C nstructicn, Moscow (D

113'

4

Scientific Research Institute of Plastics, Moscow (1)

Leningrad Scientific Research Institute of Polyner Plastics, Leningrad (
Scientific Research Institute of the Rubber Industry, Moscow (1)
Scientific Research Institute of Physico-ChaEistry Irani Xarpov, Moscovi

«t rteelaev

m-TTn-i nn Scientific He search Institute of GaoPhysical Methods of
Prospecting, Leningrad (2)

XLC-tiniod'Sciantifio "He search Institute or Geology, Lafllagfad
All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Geophysical Methods
of Prospecting, Moscow (1)

All-Union .Scientific Research Institute of Nuclear Geophysics and
Geochemistry, Moscow (1)

f^rrf n+.-r-r of AgrtcultUTW

Moscow Institute of, Agricultural Saginaara Goryachkin, Moscow

MLS$g of Petrolaua Extraction Industry

All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Patrochanical Processes,
Leningrad (1) 1

mnl*±TT nr

Central Scientific Research Institute of Disinfection, Moscow (l)
Moscow Institute of 'Vaccines *nd ear a imeni Machnikov, Moscow (i)
All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Medical Instruments
and Iquipsant, Moscow (2)

Mini sxi— or Richer Education

Mosocw Institute of Coaetructiwn engineering iaeni iiuybyshev,
Moscow (2)

Moscow State University, Moscow (33)

RLgSBli:

UaLsiiz a£ '-^Unu. ggaaS

Odessa ^tate Medical Institute ineni Pirogov, Odessa (1)
Ministry of Health. SjFJI

Stats Institute of Cacology, Moscow (1)

'■j - - str’f a t Ml Aar Education * R£isz?*

mrStokJSaSSF* <’>

Laninersd. -tat# University, Leningraa (2)

Moscow Institute of aviation Technology, Moscow 1)

'•’oscow Institute ox’ Chemical Technology, .*,oscow (1)

Moscw Institute 'of Fine Chemical Technology iaeni Lomonosov,

Moscow (2) • ^

Moscow Higher Technical school iaaai Bauman, Moscow (1)

1 Moscow Phjrsiso-Tachnical Institute, Moscow (3)

Moscow state Pedagogical Institute imeni Lenin, Moscow (4)

■ Gorki* state University, Gorki j (3)

Saratov State University, Saratov (1)

Novosibirsk state University, Novosibirsk (2)

Ural Polytechnics! Institute, Sverdlovsk (1)

Kalinin Pedagogical Institute, Kalinin (l)
r«Hwte State University, Kalinin (1)

Ministry of Higher Sducatjga, UkrSSR-

Kiev Technological Institute of light Industry, Kiev 0)
Kiev State University (5)

U2hgorod State Unireraity, Uzhgorod (1)

Khar'kov State University, Khar’kov (i)

r

M-iai rtr-r of Education. LatSSR

Latvian State University, Riga (7)

Ministry of 51 char education ^HtSaa
Vilnius itate University, Vilnyus (2)

Ministry of iiiAar Uducatioh. HstSSH

Tartu wtata University, Tartu (1)

Ministry of Ufrhar Sduaa ion UssSH

Samarkand etata University, nonarkand (2)
Tashkent -tata University, Tashkent (1)

r.c-.m '..‘lots A-:l if .’ill n- tlcn

.«clxntlNlc ..asatrcu Institute of seismic inccr-mect -ui._cin;,
initio -Il-Uific .^search Institute of the Fishing Industry,
tllimnl..- . -cicntific -«ss*rca Institute ox” Petr- Ijua ana Gas,

Saratov (i)
2i«a (2)
Moscow (1)

115 ‘

4

•ppz.:2i

sissies:;! scmnisis \cnvs i:: the semi dissiseit

IXfJESLI AS 0? 1977-73 (EZCLUSIIIG K-UGHES TKSOUGE S.'-ELI 1979)

;.ane ('Tsars in dissident novenent)

(1976-73)
(1977)
(1977-78)

(1975-77)
(1963-77)
(1963-73)
(1977-78)
(1969-78)
(1970-77)
(1921-78)
(1976-77)
(1971-78)
(1977)
(1972-78)
(1972-77)
(1973-77)
(1968-77)
(1971-77)
(1968-77)
(1965-78)
(1977)
(1977)
(1971-77)
(1968-78)
(1963-77)
(1971-78)
(1971-78)

(1974-?6)
(1975-77)
(1968-73)
(1977)
(197S)
(1976-77)
;;ci;cs?S2Ltfa ( 1968-77)

(1970- )

(1973-77)
(1963-78)
(1975-78)
(1974-77)
(1965-77)
(1973-77)

T.’ PETIT

2. H’TShTLZ?.
"2l';:CL2

aegiicv

2-- TEL* ISLS7

3 naim;
sahasaucv
3EGILI *

3. 3SSLEI
I. 3SZLP
EELAUOVSKII

bcloixl; j

BRAILOVSKAIa

EKlILCVSXTi

BIM'HSTHCVICh

BUTOVA

DZEB.'TeVA

riy!T^T?!i-i I f .rAi

7.Me3IL-::

ITL1PPC7

jTteel’ seise;

GASTEV

geeke;

G. GCL’DShlEZi;

I. GCL'DShTSr;

GCL’7 'TTD

GCL'ETS

GuitVICh

iCTS

IdSE

IS.uICV.

£U*P CV

K-piT;:;chTJi:

i.-pL.::
EAZAChKCV
ll« ill. ‘II

*w.*4*! I — 3 .

Hsu:;

SCHChAX

(1976-77)

■SIHCKATMa

KQSTSaillA

(1974-77)

TARATCTA

1X7 ALEV #

(1968-74)

TH-lAChEV

scvees

(1977)

TRIPGIICV 4

1SISTI

(1968-77)

TsELSSh j

KUShll *527

(1977)

TsEICSER

O.KVAChEVSSII

(1963-77)

TVEHDCEhLSECV

LAUD!

(1971-78)

U3C2hiT0 4

L.V7UT

(1968-78)

ULAII07SKIT

(I971r78)

K. VELIKHOVA

LLSCVSEAZa

J968-7S)

T. VELIKHOVA

LCZAIJSKMa

(1979)

VIII2EHG

IL'SESIH

(1974-77)

laHZll-AGAIeV

1-lAShXOV

(1965-77)

UASfaKOVA

(1958-77)

mini

(1968-78)

1-HZIaiCIlI

(1974-77)

NAZAKTall

(1969-77)

LUKOLAleV^

(1970-78)

ORLOV #

(1972-77)

FSKHLOVA

(1977)

PETRELIEG

(1969-78)

PETUEhOV

(1977)

HEGEL1 SOU

(1974-77)

REEU3RATSEI2

(1974-77)

roheui

(1965-78)

RozEushisn;

(1974-78)

RUDAKOV

(1966-77)

SAKhAECV

(1966-79)

SEEHE20V

(1977)

ShABAShCV

(1975-77)

ShAPHEVICh

(1968-77)

(1974-77)

SBBhAKOVICh

(1968-76)

ShUSTER

(1968-73)

ShchARAiTSEIT //(1973-77)

ShchEGLCV

(1963-73)

siHomm;

(1977)

setirselz

(1967-77)

s;:cm;:

(1976-77)

SOLOV’EV

(1969-77)

*

in enile

r/ in labor
llo

carp or ps7chintric hospital

(1971-73)

(19-/7)

(1963-78)

(1966-78)

(1972-77)

(1977)

(1969-78)

(1970-78)

(1975-77)

(1974-77)

(1968-78)

(1968-77)

(1977)

APPENDIX TTT

JEWISH SCIENTISTS WHO HATE BEEN REFUSED EMIGRATION
AND ARE STILL IN THE USSR (1978)

ALHER

LIPShITa

AL'PERT

UPK0VSKH

BARABANOV

LITVINOV

BARBOI

MiT.-mi

BEGUN

MANEVICh

B. BEYLIN

MEZMAN

I. BEYLIN

MTUpnT.TMRKTY

BRULOTSKAYa

MQGHEVER

hrahotskty

MOIShEZON

msmu

MZSLOBODSm

PEVZNER

FAIaBHAN

PHTTOROTaKH

TAXTEL'SON

FlaTETaKIX-ShAFIBO

TINSEL1 ShTEYN

BlYTViMiW

rag? nr w

RANK

GAL'PERIN

Banm

r.MnrhMiw

RQZENShZEZN

GEL'FANDBEZN

BDEhlTaEH

GEHShOVICh.

ShABAShCV

GIL'DENGORN

ShSPSLEV

GUXuIIN

ShTERM

GGL'DHLAT

ShTICBlI

GQL'TAND

ShTHMAN

G* GOL'DShTEZN

ShohARANSKH

I. GOL'DShTEZN

TARATUTA

GQL'DFARB

TaEZTUN

GORDIN

TalNOBER

GUETITa

ULANOVSm

1075

VAINER

OMKNCMGSTSKAIa

VOLOShIN

KTgBf.gV7Ph

lam

rrsr.Tr

luSOVSKAIa

m

ZARETam

KOGAN

KDHENELIT

KOVNER

EUShNABET

KUSTANOVICh

IERNER

LEVIT

117

;:ciss

The following abbreviations be used in the footnotes: SDS (Scbrnnlve
dokanantov «aizd»ta) ▼ (volume), £TS (K hnonlk. teiniehahikh eobitiT/Chronicl
of Current Events) # (issue), ZZP CBgfflUSfi «»shchit7 nrev v SSSR/Chronicla «
Human Sights in the USSR) , AS ( 'rkhiv semisdata) , SG2 fftwwteirfyjt g~.zhd?na
sashchishchsvut nolodvkh literg.torov) . US gtoSiZ T» *nc

1-iS (Material? samlzdata).

1. MS 41/75 .IS 2314 pi (the statement is about SQV’LEV) .

2. ARTsIMOVICh, at the 1963 Pugvash Conference in Dubrovnik, albert Parry,
Tha Heir Class Divided (Sav fork: MacMillan, .1966), p305.

3. ^nH« Lubr&no and John Berg, "Aeadaay Scientists in tha US' and USSR:

Background Characteristics, Institutional and Regional Mobility, * in John R.
Thomas and Ursula M. £ruse-Taucieims( editors) , Soviet Science ?.nd Technology;
Soma stie and Foreign Perspective a (Washington, D.C.: The George Washington
llniversity7 1977). pp101-140. » .

4. Parry, p252. Penfield found, incidentally, that the greatest number of
dissidents in his study from one occupational group was contained in tha
technocrat-engineer group (31?) . He found that 21% of tha dissidents ware fror
the scientist group. If only a third of Soviet engineers are "true" engineer!
as Parry suggests, than it would be the scientists who compose tha single
largest occupational group among dissidents. Gary I. Penfield, Tb« Chnnnicla e
Current Brents: A Content ^oulTai a ( Garni sch: US *rsy Russian Institute, 1973)
P2.

5. Fredrick Sarghoorn, Detente »nd the Democratic Movement In the USSR
(Hew lork: The Free Press, 1976), p6.

SteBlar 1

1. Chores Medvedev, Soviet Science (New lork: Norton, 1978), pS9.

2. 3arghoorn, p28.

3. XTS #15, pp15-l6.

4. SDS v3 5S163 ?19.

5. SDS v29 .*iS16l1 pp67-69.

6. ARTsIMOVICh, S.'PITs*., LXIJTCVICh, ii'ISKU, S,'Sh*RC7, TAMM. SDS v4 ’S273 F

118

a

7. SDS v9 AS667 pS.

8. Icadesdciana (physicist a) GEZ2CRG, ZEL'DOVICh, LZQUTOVICh, IHGD^L,
S-M 07, TAiii, (chanist) mUBZaflls, (biologist) AST AURCV, and (biochamist)
EDGED* GARDT. SDS v3 3-SI 59 ppl-2.

?. Academicians GIHZ30RG, KAPITaA, KEUETaBTs, LEGUTOVICh, SAKhABCV,
and ZZL'DCVICh, corresponding member GEL'PAHD, and scientists LEVHI, IAI*-3SKH
A. XaGLCi, sad DCSRBShHI. SDS v23 AS1156 pp8-9.

10. SDS v3 AS165 pi.

11. SDS v3 AS168 ppl-5.

12. Karol Van HetRave (editor), Dear Comrade! P»yal Lit vinov «r>A the Voice a

, »

of Soviet Citizens In Dissent (New Xork* Pitanan, 1969), px.

13. aiOGOaODSKAXa, VOL1 PIS, GASTEV, GKEKHJ, GRABAR* , GUHVTCh, DZERSXeVA,
SOBSUShlS, K 'GAKOVA, K.APLAH, K2ISTI, LISCVSKAIa, LIT7IDCV, PIET, RDDASBV, UMAChEV,
ShUSISR, ShcbSGLQV, V.. STEEL* HAS, G. EZDEL'llAS. SDS v2 AS10T pp31—32.

14* dULIRUKEVICh, VQL'PIM, GASTEV, GEUKHJ, DCSBUShlN, LISCVSKATa, LITVIKOV,

V. PGSGIASEV, RAPP, TELAChEV, V. EHEL^H, G. EXDEL'HAK, PCSTKEOV. SKmSKir.
SDS v2 AS107 pp 32-33.

1!* Hotywrg*.B|ftMrg Q* Stalin; Diaaidenca and the Soviet Regime

J

1953-70 (ithieal Cornell University, 1972), p330

16. GEL’P'ED, KDLDZSh, P. ECVIZCV, RCSSCTL'D, Sh.AP AREVICh. and A. r^r.T.raf.
SDS vl ’.SIS ppl-2.

17. n/EEffl.'.Ia, VIL»XaMS, A. 7SLIKAK0VA, X. 7SLEUX7 A, cr^mr IIEZLCS,
PCLIau, GASTEV, GR'EAR*, DCSSL'ShlK, ESLCGCRCDSK’Ie, D’KISL*, ROD AZOV. ZAPL'K.
SDS vl A SI pp3-4.

13. SDS n ADI 7 ppl-4.

19. ’ <-.13010, RRZaDTESK '• T» , VA3ILE7SZXX, TCL’PET, GEKKEI, GERSliCTIGb, G2I3,
GRIShEI, DESA, BSSW, ZAKS, EIShSCHK, KCI'TaV, K'ShEI-’, L.KV'ChEVSKir,

■32E3Ta, ICP2LC7, KRISTI, I-SSZUE, IGLAShEVICh, IRJChHIK, NAT'PCV, PAVLUTChOK, .
?0D*TePCL»3ZIX, PCKCLADEV, PCPOV, RAPP, RSZKIKCfV, BDSQ% SIPAChEV, STARCSTHJ,
TJTA3S2E, TEi’CbEV, TUPITalll, V. TURChIK, K. TDRChlil, USPSL’SKU, F'DEIeVA,

KhAZ’ECT, ShiiXI, ShUSTER, ShchZSRIII, ShchEGICV, V. EZDEL’M'E, G. ESDEL'li’JI,
laVGEKCV, KCV.'LSVSK’Ia, ECK3KK0, L2VI1I, tiAZSEIOV’, IfflQl’E, RGKITIaDSEIX,
SZRCIeuhilCVSSII, ULITsKAXa, 7EDGBSDZC, Sh’PIRC, SUShEV, and SCTDA. SDS vl ’.S2 ppl— 6.

20. 'KHC7, 22RG, RCRISC7, VASSEDir::, GLADKII, 2,‘Kh ’20V, ZASLAVSEIZ, EUL'ZCV,

.. Khil’ITSC:, SCZGLC7, SEDZaChm, JET, ZJOI.AII, ShRIPLOVICh, and Sh 'BAT. i physics

--archer at * physics -nd mathematics secondary school, IIA2DCR7, also signed.

3-.S vl 'S21 ppl— 2.

119

2i. •;:L:x::cv-L-c:rc'.ich( bsdzudlit, iCvshsriY, bcxct*, xsg ■?-, ve:33G,
S2.*2*S», G37ICh, *. GLTTTICh, 3137, DU! ‘3UHG, Z'::ChZ3C, 2U2SC7S3I, 2731:.',

s'-a.’flCT, i*a.u:c7.-., eisissr-scv, ssaxuosxasia, isdx-stsp’:: v*, :mxsh,

DC7'LS7, aoc, LAVUT, LSCDTCVICh, ilOChUXOV, HEOTJCVSKAIa, laShKOVSaX, 1HLLE
::€»I2 '3IE, KCSTCVAXa, S. ITO'/IitL'V, ?CS3CV£L?Ia, PCSVXaUSEXZ, 213D OVICh, HCDIGEC
SGlADOV*, 33S0I, SKflLQE, fi-2SJa3I!07, S0XCLC7, TAT'RSm, TCVSTGZh*, ChMLXc
sffi, shsax shinar, ara, xusn.% *. isGia:. sds vi js7 2 ppi-6.

22. ZGSCIZ7, TaSDhlJSTSSDSC, SCHDASChDS, Z'SL TSH -la, LIDChSDX, DZXu3,
vZShSISKTT, G2X33SDV, ZhAD'lE, GIdGCa'37, ShCTL*, 3EUXa3X, 2KD*3», TXaGA!
rJLXuPCr, ZCIeV, S'PjET, TCXiChDi, ShSSl, SKCJCKhCD, OR'UVSm, P0KHCVS2IX,
SELZaPEHZC, SCKGLGV, 3ESS2AU5SXZ, STTEflCO, DVC32C, PUT1, 3.*.GhHIS5H, GCGhUI,
u'.TTIXeinX, LXaaEI, TCLPTGC, SESL’CY*. SDS vi »S46 ppl-4.

23. P. IIC7HXV, LSL'P'UD, LXuSOaDIE, H'lUXV, l-JEI'SHCV, S. HCVIEDV, ShAFOI

ciiol’d, vrrushim, ochrgd, kits, wexiiae, pcsrmov, acsshisni, acchvia,

XePRE-IOVICh, iSLZgSh, H3ILLG7, mnSUT'ZT, KU3C3h, LANDIS, LCDShICh, POTZBSa,
ZLCLEISHT, PTaTST sKU-Sh TISD, P'l’HDDCV, SMIB210V, 701111, ShILOV, I.XaGLCK,

I. TaGLQl, \G3AHQVICh, •PXhAHGXL' SEX, POHCHAKEV, SIS AX, ATXBSQKb, M.I£KfiBgV,

jalauh.*', 3AR.y:ovich, xssaligc, bbsshj, ajifChgrsm, 38C3taUsam>, wiles*

A. VETTaEL* , T. VSITTaXL', TZTBBiilOVSSXX, 7XH2ESG, VOLSVICh, 7DL, GHHXCm,
GCLC, GBA3 IS’ , XfiBAXm, KXH, DEUTSBES, ECnSTAmUCV, L. KHCURCD, QDZhSCV,
IEXLOV, EJLAGEI, LT7ShE.T£, LOUD, HXBLCS, MUhAXLCVA, QDIShchK, CRSVBDV, P MX
POLXaS, SEDDEXaV, SIQLXailSm, TrShOCEECV, TCTUBAlEI, TZvBISA , PUOUE, TOES,
£k.-ELEVS2IX, TsIiaUU, ChBBEAVSm, Sh'PISC, ShiRXGXE, SiilXh IHOVICh, TaHEOIT,
TISPtfhOTSSU, VIL’TfiiS, GASTSV, ESXSTI, ShBSIC?'L, and gaophyglolst PC^TaPCL
SDS vi <S20 ppl-4.

24. Only three were identified! KDPCSh, LXuSTSaiHZ and I-IEHShGV. SDS vi AS20 i

25. SDS v20 'S1006 p3.

26. SDS v20 '.SI 006 p8.

27. SDS v24 ’SI 250 p79.

28. laid.

29. SDS v20 *S1006 p7.

30. SDS v20 AS1006 pp7-8.

31. Harrison Salisbury (editor), Sakharov Soe«ka (Hew Xorkx Hnopf, 1974), pi 5.

32. SDS ?3 'S200 ppl-27.

33. o*S vl '.S70 ppl-6.

120

34. SDS 72 AS108 ppl-4.

35. SDS 728 i31 524 p5.

36. SDS 73 AS163 p21.

37. T. VELIKANOVA, TOL’PIN, KANAIeV, KAPLAN, SCH02RCVA, DHOV, PLXuShch,
ROCETXaNSKXZ, S8LI7AN07, SIROIeChKOVSKIT, HILAShEVICh, NEZPAKh, PANOVA, LAVDT,
TIMAChSV, DZhBOEV, KOVAIEV, and BUDAKOV. SDS 74 AS 288 pp1-3«

38. SDS Yl AS 37 pi.

39. XZP #1 pll.

AO. SDS Yl AS96 pi, AS 97 p2.

41. SDS 76 AS 469 pi 4.

42. SDS 74 AS 274 ppl-19.

43. SDS Yl AS44 ppl-2.

44* SDS t6 AS383 ppl-24.

45. p6.

46. rrs #2 pi9.

47. US #5 P48, SDS Yl AS57 ppl-2.

48. SDS 730 AS3008 p259.

49. KBONBOD, TaBLONSKH, ROZhKOVA, RODIONOV, HJChKDVA, LUChKDV, ROMANOVA,
DVQHKD. (See Notes for Chapter in).

50. PAVUNChUK, KRISTI, I. laGLCM, KOVALEV, PET, XXLASbSVICh., ShTENGEL1, BERG,
KVAChSVSKIZ, BAChINSm, PUT1, MATVIZeNKO, ZASLAVSKAXa, aoppapchUK, PLTuShch.
(See notes for Chapter HI).

51. TsEKbMISIHENKD, PQtCZN. (See notes for Chapter HI}.

52. ULEHKO, BEREZANSKII, SKQROKhOD. (See notes for Chapter III).

53. ASNOL1D, BERG, ChAZLAKhlaN, DZEBAIeVA, GASTEV, GESKXN, GSRShOVICh, GRAB AH'
GUKVICh, KAMBNCMOSTSKAZa, KOVALEV, LEQNTWICh, LITVINOV, KAPLAN, KRISTI, LAVUT,
LEVIN, UINTs, ME3MAN, NATAPOV, NECTAKh, PAVUNChUK, PLTuShch, POD^TaPOL1 SKU,
PONOMAREV, FTaTETsKH-ShAPIRO, ROKHTaNSKIZ, BUDAKOV, ShAPAHEVICh, ShUhANOVICh.

54

v2 '-SI 26 p4<

55. 2DS *34 p5.

56. SDS vJO AS65To ?p1-5.

57. SDS v9 'S624 ppl-3.

5S. Cli’XISffl, TVSXEZhLZDOV, TCL'PE, TsUSSS:^, PJGSSI'L*. SDS T7 -S510 pi.

59. STS v7 *5512 pi.

60. 3*2.’3.'6X7, PS72ISI, L2PS0VSZH, OlEICtieSTSL'Ia, TsUEESLLUI, 3IG3Sl-i.U:,

t settle;, pcl'skit, Dismi.r, tbeydii;, il'-leeh. sds v9 AS624 pp2-3.

61. IcShH:07, DZhE-ZLE?, K071LZV, LOT, PLZuShch, DTuITXjuISEIT, 2DD*.KCV,

TEI'ChEV. SDS vl AS103 pi.

62. SDS t2 AS110 pi.

63. TCS 33U pi 1.

64. SDS T!2 AS1629 p2.

65. T. 7SLELUI0VA, LA7UT, PLIuShch, PCD»IaPOL' SSH, SCESZh!!SQZv VCL'PEI.

SDS v4 *S252 p2.

66. aCSTMSg!. SDS t4 '5253 p3.

67. PELOGGlIGDSu *Za, DZhEZLEV, SCSTEZH: VOL’PE, PLIuShch, PCD"T=PCL» SETT,
SJS'JSCT, ZClAChEV, DDCZhEO. SDS V4 '-S2C9 ppl-2.

63. SDS -75 .’S360 ppl-15.

59. SDS vG *S604 ppl-6.

70. O11I7 ten of the scientists were identified} S*VEh.‘-3C7, T‘111, LSCIDTCTICh,
lUSChET, • X* t'ShULIS «, D7C3S3 - *, liiJV *L4V , Ch'EIDZE, VCL*PE snd Dungpxim biologist
2m Ealr.sh. SDS v6 ‘S417 ?2.

71. jaifi., pi.

72. SDS to 'S434 ppl-2.

73. Dlioras Ijdredev -nd Dc“ iisdvedeT, * Question of l>dnaggfDev loriii Dhoof 1971),

p12C.

7^.. ««otn o ars , p300»

122

75. D 1207, KQSTERINA, PLZuSbeh, POD*IaPQL' SCI, BUDAKOV, SAMSONOV, HHAChiV.

SDS -76 AS406 p2.

76. SDS t25 iS1460 p552.

77. ETS #15 pp15-l6.

78. SAKhASOV, IJSQNTOVICh, TURChlN, ChALXDZE, TVXRDQKhLEBOV, KOVALEV, ShlKhANCVICh,
PQDFZaPGL* SKU, KRISTI and LAVUT. SDS 77 AS475 p2.

79. HELOGGRGDSKAXa, T. VELIKANOVA, 70 L*'OT, KOSIEHINA, LAVDT, POD*TaPOL'SXII,
HODAEDV. SDS t7 AS49B p2.

ao. sds iob rrs #17 p 39-

si. BELOGORGDSKAXa, VQL»PIN, T. VELIKANOVA, DUCT, KAPLAN, KOVALEV, LAVDT,
HXLAShETIGh, PODTaPQL'SKH, BUDAKOV, TTKSDOKhlZBOV, ChALIDZS. SDS v7 AS516 ppl-2.

82* SDS t23 AS 1176 ppl-3.

83. IMA,

84. SDS 79 AS6S2pp3_8.

85. lUd.

86. SDS 721 AS1022 ppl-5.

87. SABiABOV, LZCNTOVICh, BELOGQRODSKAIa, T. VELIKANOVA, VOL > PIN, GEBShOVICh,
KOSTEHTNA, LAVDT, MJLASfcEVICh, FLZoShch, POCTaPOL1 SKU, BUDAKOV, TIMAChEV.

SDS 79 AS696 p 2-3.

88. SDS 724 AS1283 pi.

89. BAKhMIN, BgLOGORODSKAIa, GA7DEK0V, KRISTI, TIMAChEV, T. VELIKANOVA, ChALIUZE.
MS 11/74 AS1552 pp5-6.

90., SDS t2S AS1550 p336.

91. SDS 728 AS1422 p387.

92. SDSv28 AS1524 ppl 15-129.

93. SDS 728 AS1588 pi.

94. XZP #31, p30.

95. XZP #31, p22.

96. XZP #31, P3o .

123

97. SDS t25 AS1445 ppl-2.

98. SDS v24 181244 pi.

99. 80S rlOB ZT8 #26 p35.

100. VCL'PIN, UtODTOVICh, SfalFlSEVXCh, BERG, TVXRDQKhUBOV, MOYShEZnw m-OTsEW
KOVSET, la. t*7ICh, 7. IJEVXGh, IBBIB, BRAILOVSKII, PQD*TaPGL'Sm, L. AL'TShULLER,
ShlKhAHOVICh, KOVALEV, ChALUZK, I. VBH1B0VA, JL’BREXhl, KRISTI, D. OZSL',
SAKhAROV. SD6 *24 181196 ppl-2.

101. Saas people as those in Note 100 nrlnna ShIKhlSOVXCh. SOS v24 t£> . ,97 ppl-2.

102. SOS 725 1S1401.

103. SDS 725 181418 pp336-338.

104. 808 725 181418 p318.

105. MS1 1/74 181552 p2.

106. It least nineteen of the forty era natural scientists* physicists Baser,
Bogolyubor, VonsoraJdy, Logunov, Obukhov, Prokhorov, Tuohkevioh, biologists
XBQKL'GIRDT and ThW’ri"J chemist a- Neaaeyanov, Ovchinnikov, Oparin, Semenov,

Spitsjm, mathematicians Keldysh , Sobolev, Tikhonov, and engineers Kotel'nikov
and Patou. Pravda August 29 1973* p3.

107. 808 v25 181463 p560.

108. SDS v25 181455 p517.

109. SOS v25 AS1463 p56l.

110. M. AZEBL', A2HBHJ3ER, BRAILOVSKII, VORONEL', 7. LZVICh, LUNTs, BOGHSKU,
TEMKIN. SDS 725 AS14S5 p 710.

111. SDS 725 AS1464 P567.

112. SDS 728 AS1559 p446.

113. SDS v25 p721.

114. SDSt25 1S1490 pp719-720.

115. SDS v25 181491 p721.

116. KOVALEV, LITVINOV, T. VELIKANOVA. SDS v25 AS1497 ppl-2.

117. SDS v25 AS1478 ppl-2.

124

1

118. MS 11/74 AS1594 ppl-7.

119. Cm philosopher lari Popper also sav the similarity bstvasn ths
scientist and ths artists

Ths scientist* and ths artist, far frcm being engaged in
oppossd or incompatible activities, ars both trying to extend
our understanding of experience by uss of creative Imagination
subjected to eritieal control, and so both ars using irrational as
well as rational faoultiss. Both ars exploring ths unknown and
trying to artioulats ths search and ics findings. Both ars seekers
aftsr troth who males Indlapsnaibls uss of intuition.

Proa this, it oould bs suggsstsd that a asisntist is unabls to work in ths
parochial and eonstrainsd environment into which ths Soviet anthoritiss wish
to placs him, and that seisnes cannot dsrslop in a system which denies
creative Imagination or places limitations on it. Bryan Mages Popper (Glasgow
Fontana, 1976), pp68-69.

120. Ths other scientists wars AL'BHEKhl, HEL00ZEBGV, and QBLOVSKXX.

SDS v28 AS1501 pi.

121. SAfhAROT, T. TSLUAHOVA, SOVAUSV, LITVIHOY, POD*TaPOL»Sm. SDS v29 AS1622
pp16l-l62.

122. t. mmaovA, gaseef, am, kotaucv, latdt, luvusot. pomaPQL'sm,

50CAED7, ,wm»mrTiTnprm,J UHiCbST, ShUSTSR. SDS v29 iS1652 p32oa.

123. MB 41A5 AS 2314 ppl-2. ,

124. SDS v29 AS1651 ppl-2.

125. ShAFABmCh. TDBChIN, CRLOV, AGURSKTT, KOVALEV, T. VELIKANOVA, 7DB0HEL'.

X» #13 P6. _ \

126. SDS v29 AS1611 pp67-69.

127. ZZP #13 p28.

128. JTS #34 P5.

129. ZZP #31 p35.

130. rrs #34 p5.

131. XZP #14 PP9-12.

■!32. US #34 PP3-4.

133. T. mmiI07A, PGD^aPGL>Sm, XOSTEHHJA, 3AKMHJ, LAVUT, TDRChlN, IgTCN,
AL»BHBKhI, GASTEV, LAUDA, AGUBSKrT,M.fflBSHI, 3 ALOVA, OHLCfV, HOZEUShTEZN, MIZTaKHI,
TE-iAChEV, HEKOMATSKH, GGL*7AHD, ZaUSSLETICh, KATsOHIS, PETHSaleVSKAIa, KAHPOVICh,
A. 7ELHAD0V, LISOVSKAXa. MS41/75 AS2314 p3.

125

■134. XZP #18 ,p5.

135. SAZhAROV, TDRChIN, OBLOV, MNIuE, PANFILOVA, GGL»7A2ID, V. LSVICh, S ALOVA,
GASTEV, LAVOT, T. VZLIZABOVA, LSRNZR, ZORChAE, AL» BRECHT, MEZMAN, XaNEELEVTCh,
ShUhANOVTCh, M. AZ2EL* • MS 41/76 AS2756 p2.

136. ZZP #14 PP31-51.

137. ZZP #14 p5.

138. ShchARIBSCI, V. DAVIDUV, LDNTa, I. BEILIN, FTNKEL'ShlEIN, GCLDFARB.

11519/75 AS2130 plj LAUDA ZZP #15 p7| TUBChIN, ORLOV, AL'HREKhT I2P #15 p9.

139. nnraH . 29 April 1976, p5.

140. ZZP #14 PP7-8.

141. ZZP #29 p24.

142. Barghoora, pp66-72,

143. US #38 p6| Irwatira. 26 October 1975, p3*

144. US #38 p6.

145. US #40 pp117-119.

146. See Chapter II.

147. SAKhAROV, V. LZVICh, MEZMAN, IZBNER, M. AZHEL1, HRATLOVSKH, E. TSUONOV,
AL'BER, ORLOV, ZORChAZ, SALANSBH, ROZEEShlSZtl, GASTEV, TDRChIN, FINEZL' ShTEZN,
BRAILOVSKAIa, GOL'PAND, G. GQLtDShTSZN, I. GOL'DShlEZN, PSLIK, GTJRFEL', ShEPETJKT
and K08TEHINA. MS34/76 AS2644 p4«

148. ZTS #42 pp^- 9 •

149. VELIKANOVA, LAND A, ORLOV, ShchARANSEH. Ibid.

150. IIS #43 plOO.

151. ZTS #41 pTO.

152. MEZMAN, ZAZS, REGEL1 SON, BAEbMDf, GENQN, LAVOT, LANDA, MAShEOVA, ShchARANSEI
T. VELIKAEOVA, TDRChIN, MNTuKh, I. BEILIN, GOL'?AND, DLANOVSKU, LZttSARSSIZ,
AL'PERT, SAKhAROV, ZaNKELEVICh, LERNER, I. GOL1 DShlEZH, G. GOL'DShTEZN, STROEATAZa,
S ALOVA, and M. A23EL*. MSI 9/77 .1329 66 ppl-2.

126

153* M. AZBEL', ALEKSEZeV, AL' BEEKhT, AL'TShULLER, BABEMIShEV, BARABANOV,

BAKhlON, 3. BEYLIN, BQLOHSHI, BRAILOVSKII, BRAILQVSKAIa, K. VELIKANOV A,

T. VELIKANOV A, VIL'IaMS, GAIeNKO, GASTEV, GENKDJ, G. GGL'DShTEZN, I. GOL'DShTEDT,
DZEBAIaVA, ZAKS, V. IOFE, ISAKOVA, KAPITANChUK, KLIMANOVA, KORChAK, KOSIERHIA,
LAVUT, LANE A, V. LEVICh, LISOVSKAIa, LTuBARSKH, MAShKDVA, MNIuKh, HAShKOV,
mZOLAIeV, PANFILOVA, STROTIHO, REGEL' SON, REKPBRlTaPI, ROZENShTEZN, RQHUN,
RUSAKOV, SALOVA, PETRENKO, SMQLKTN, STROK ATAIa, TIMAChEV, TDRChUI, FINKEL* ShTEYN,
ShA BAShOV, ShEPECEV, ShOSTSR, Kh iKhAIaV, ShchARANSEZ, ShchEGLOV, XaNKELEVICh,
MEDIAN, MAKBSIN, MJZTaKIN, FAIN, BIGEN, FAIeRMAN, I. BEILIN, Tsrarep, DlaD'EIH,
KRISTI. AS3051 PP25-32.

154. rrs #44 PP 17-22/

155. Ihid.. p23.

156. ITS #47 pp2Q-21.

157. ITS #47 pp21. .

158. IMd-

159. AL'PERT, AL'BER, BRAILOVSKII, GOLTiHB, V. LEVICh, LERNER, MEDIAN, AS3272 pi;
LANDA, I. GOL'DShlEZN, SAKhAROV) POLIKANOV, LAVUT, ZaBD4-AGEZeV and BAKbMIN,

XZP #30 p7.

160. rrs #44 p25.

161. IMd.. p26.

162. rrs #46 pp 29-30; CS #45 pp20-21; US #47 p26, 28-29.

163. rrs #46 PP27-28.

164. ULANOVSKH, TaSZM-AGEIeV, LERNER, M. KhAIT, FAIN, FINKEL' ShTEYN, BAKhMIN,

I. GUREVICh, la. Talrlln, V. Eydus, V. Gertaherg, and la. PargamanDc.

MS27/77 AS3035 ppl-2,

165. XZP #31 pi 6,

166. ITS #47 pp92-93.

167. AL’BER, BRAILOVSKII, GOL'FAND, MEDIAN, V. IEVICh, ROZENShTEZN, ESS AS, LERNER,
KOVNER, GIL'DENGQRN. MS2/78 AS3099 p3.

168. XIS #47 p139.

169. rrs #48 P31.

127

170. rrs:#4S p3i.

171 . rrs #49 pp7-9.

172. US m PP31-33.

173. XZP #31 pp25-28.

cAaat« g,t

1. SDS -72 AS126 p4.

2. Ibid.

3. SDS t6 AS433 p4.

4- Ibid.. p6.

5. MS41/75 AS23U p3.

6. SDS 730 AS254S p4.

7. SDS t6 ASU8 p2.

8. Ibid.

9. SDS 716.

10. SDS 724 4S1270 pi.

11. SDS 716 AS660a p82.

12. SDS 716 4S657b p4.

13. SDS 724 AS1264 pi.

14. SDS 724 AS1258 pi.

15. SDS 725 AS i486 pi.

16. XZP #3 pi 4.

17. SDS 728 AS1501 pi.

18. SDS 730 AS2371 pp145-146.

128

19. SDS v30 pi 44.

20. SDS v3Q 4S2401 pp147-158.

21. SDS 730 AS2542 p5.

22. SDS v30 AS2903 p19j SDS 73O pi .

23. tZP y26 pp26-35.

24. US #40 ppl 18-119.

25. XbU» pi 19.

26. SDS 730 p39.

27. SDS 730 AS2740 p46.

28. SDS 730 AS284la pp65-66.

29. SDS 730 p73.

30. SDS 730 AS3059 pp78-81.

31. SDS 730 AS2839 p44.

32. SDS 730 AS284U p66.

33. SDS 730 AS 30 59 p80.

34. XZP #25 p45.

35. SDS 730 AS3136 pp6l 6-617.

36. SDS 730 p173.

37. Jtid.

38. SDS 713 AS600 pp4S-50.

39. SDS 713 AS601 p67.

40. SDS t9 AS625 pi.

41. SDS 724 AS1212 P3.

42. Albert AxeToank, SoTlet Pl3sent; a. Java and Detente (New lork:

?ranklin ¥atts, 1975), p45«

43. Intaraatj-on^l Herald Tribune. February 14 1979.

44. *

129

45. SDS 728 AS1522; MS27/74 AS1758; 1IS24/75 AS2099; SDS v13 AS1673 pp26-27.

46. XZP #19 p p42.

47. SDS v13 AS1673 p24.

48. SDS v28 AS1522 pi.

49. MS24/75 AS2156 pi.

50. AS1788

51. 11S5/75 AS1964 p7.

52. MS32/74 AS1789? MS27/74 AS1758; AS1897} AS2094.

53. MS32/74 AS1897 pi.

54. MS2 4/75 1S2156 pi.

55. MS24/75 AS2154 pi.

56. ITS #45, pp80-81.

57. International Herald Trlfanm. 30-31 December 1978 P3.

58. XZP #19 p51.

59. XZP #19 p4S.

60. MS21/77 iS2953; ppl-6: MS21/77 AS2956 ppl-2.

61. rrs #30 pi 12; rrs #37 pp77-79.

62. M. -SZ-HEL* , BEGUN, BRAILOVSKII, FAIN, ESSAS, KTST.Tir I. GQL*DSh3EIN
G. GQL’DShlEZN, TsINQBER, SALANSKU, GURFEL*. MS21/77 AS2953 p6.

63. LERNER, LEVICh, ROZENShlEZN. MS21/77 AS2953 p6.

64. IMd.

65. ITS #37, pp77-79; XTS #30 pi 12.

66. International Herald Trihm». March 6 1979 p4.

67. SDS c12 AS 379 ppl-4.

130

63. SOS v12 AS1877 p38.

69. rrs #8 p28.

70. SOS n2 AST79 OP27-30.

71. Ibid.

t

72. SOS v12 AS379 PP31-33.

73. SOS vl AS85 pi.

74. SOS 712 AS379 P49.

75. SOS v12 AS 379 p51.

76. SOS v12 AS379.pp49-51.

77. SOS v3 AS192 pi.

78. SOS Yl AS4D. pi.

79. SOS vl AS45 p3.

80. SOS y12 AS1629 ppl-2.

81. Ibid.

82. SDS y12 AS1879 p3.

-83. SDS v29 AS1629 ppl-2.

84. rrs #49 p72.

85. rrs #48 pioi.

86. rrs #31 pi3i.

87. SOS y30 AS2862a pp1C9-110.

88. SDS v30 p107.

89. Ibid.

90. AS3142.

91. SDS v25 AS1409, AS1410.

92. SDS y23 AS1163 pi.

131

93. SDS v7 AS525 pi

94. John B. Dualop, The New Bmgfaa BaTolutioMrliig (Belmont, Haas* Nordland,
1976), pi 3.

95. Ibid.. p86.

96. Ibid.. pp87-88.

-97. SDS 723 451163 p3.

98. Ibid., pi 2.

99. Ibid., pi.

100. Dunlop, p235.

I

101. Dualop, p96.

102. Ibid.. pp93-94.

103. Ibid.. P103.

104* SDS 723 ^SH63 pl3.

105. SDS 725 AS1460

106. Hothberg, p328.

107. Georgs Senders (editor). Samizdat: Voicea of _tha SoTlet Opposition
(New Torks Monad, 1974), p235«

108. SDS 71 AS88

109. SDS t8 AS5 64j ITS #15 pi 5 J US #14 pp17-l8.

110. Sanders, p4l6.

111. SDS 722 AS1085 p3.

112. SDS 722 AS1085 p5.

113. Ibid.. p5.

114. SDS 79 45684 p9.

115. SDS t9 45684 pp52-54.

116. SDS 724 AS1191 p5.

117. SDS 725 .SSI 394 ppl-3.

118. MS10/75 AS2054 pp4^-6.

119. Ibid. ^ pp4-6.

'120. pp4-6.

121. Ibid.. p5.

122. rrs #8 p37.

123. MS10A5 AS2054 p5.

124. LZS #35 1968 p35.

125. MS10/75 AS2054 P4.

126. Ibid.

127. MS41/75 1S23U p3 (footnota 2).

128. Palo Sovalava. p40.

129. Ibid.. p41. *

130. MS38/76 AS2633 p2; AS3051 pjl.

131. MS41/75 AS2314 p3.

132. MS38/76 1S2633J MS41/75 AS23U P3; HS19/Y7 AS2966 p2; AS3 051.

133. LZS #3 1965. p21.

134. SGZ pi 79.

135. US #5 1965 p77.

136. Turkevich, pi 17.

137. US #3 1965 p23.

138. US #13 1968 p29; US #12 1968 p14.

139. LZS #9 1968 pJ7.

\

140. US #10 1968 p17.

141. LZS #11 1968 p27.

142. ITS #45, p81.

133

143. LZS #6 1966 p44; LZS #4 1968 p40.

144. XTS #6 p36.

143. LZS #4 1968 p45>

146. ns H p17.

U7. MS38/76 AS2633 pU *33355.

148. LZS #16 1968 p32. .

149. SDS v4 AS274 pp8-11.

130. Turkevlch, pp121-122.

151. LZS #24 1968 p39.

152. Palo p33.

153* Turkevich, p219.

154. SDS vl AS72 p3f SOS v24 AS1283 plj US #17 pllj ITS #14 pp4-6.

155* Turkevich, p321.

156. LZS #13 1965 p33.

T57.rPatar Soman, "Who la Soviet Physicist Audrey Tverdokhlebcv?" (Munich: Radio
Liberty Reaearch, November 17 1970), pj>.

158. Ibid.. p2.

.159. US #4 P21.

160. US #3 1968 p44.

161. LZS #23 1968 p71.

162. LZS #8 1965 p24.

163. US #2 p19.

164. Henry Gria and William Sick, The New Soviet Psychic Dlaeovariaa (Englewood
Cliff a, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978), pp43-51»

165. SDS v2 AS125 ppl-4.

166. MS42/74 AS1806.

167. MS42/74 AST 810 pi.

16 8. Grla and Sick, p291.

134

*

169. Turkevich , p321 •

170. Gordon McVay, Ssun-tni a LI fa fLanriom Hodder and Stoughton, 1976), p 226.
Hadezhda might be related to Valentin I Vol'pin, a poet and compiler of Zsenin' a
works in the 1920* s.

171. Peter Doraan, "Biographical Sheet - Audrey Nikolayevich Tverdokhlebov*

(in Russian) (Munich* Radio Liberty, 12-14 March 1976) pi. It should be noted
that TVZRDOShLBBOV1 « older brother, Vladimir, ia also a scientist (Candidate of
OiOTriftal Sciences), but is not a dissident. Vladimir stole sane of his brother' s
files to give to the authorities. ITBRDOKhLEBOV thought, however, that Vladimir
might have been forced into it. XTS #20 p37.

172. Nowv wiy. July 1958- December 1966.

173. AS3051 p27.

174. 0. lu. Shmidt (head editor), Bol'shava sore t ska? a «.nt«iM-onadlv» v14 (Moscow*
Sovetakaya entslklopediya, 1929) pp664-665.

175. A. A. Surkov (head editor), Kratkava literatumava antniviotmdlvw vl (Moscow*
Sovetakaya entslklopediya, 1962) p615«

176. SDS vl AS76 ppl-6.

177. Igor* Grabar*, Pia'ma 1891-1917 (Moscow* Nauka, 1974) PP387, 390.

178. Bothberg, p204.

179. Van Set Have, p31 .r

180. Zhoras Medvedev, The Medvedev Pacers (London* MacMillan, 1971), vll.

181. Conversation with L.A. Yudovich, TVERDOKhLEBOV* s lawyer, Gamdsch March 1979.

182. SDS v29 AS1601 p30.

183. SDS v28 AS1530 p169.

184. SDS v2 AS134 p3.

185. SDS v4 AS274 pp6, 14.

186. HarnM 3afcm» 27 1979 p5.

187. Turkevich, pp411-412.

188. Salisbury, p7.

189. Turkevich, p218.

135

190. A.M. Prokhorov. Bel t aovetskaya «ptirfieiop«dlv». v9 (Moscow* Scvetskaya
ants'! Iclopediya, 1972), p456.

191* SGZ pi 26.

192. SG2 pi 66.

193 Prokhorov v12, p22.

194. Xu. Medvedev, "Otkrpto dlya neozhidannosti, " '"Open for the unexpected*) ,
Znpmvn #3 1968 pp 127-146. Medvedev mentions that Turehln had two children as of
1941, pi 37.

196. SGZ pi 33.

197. Turkevich p233.

198. MSI JJT7 AS2902 p4.

136

Chapter HI

The following 565 footnotes apply to the biographical tables. The notes are
listed according to the last name of the respective scientist and are not
numbered. At the conclusion of the footnotes for the biographical tables thare
are several numbered fc which apply to later sections of the chapter.

ABAKUMOV* ITS #8 pp 36-37.

ABELEV: International Herald Tribune. November 24 1975; LZS #2 1968 pl65
(with S.D. Perova), LZS #2 1968 pi 50 (with R.D. Bakirov).

ABLIaMITOVA* ITS #41 p59.

ABRAMKIN: ITS #43 pp93-94.

ABRAMOV: SDS vl AS56 p2; possibly the A. A. ABramov who co-authored with
le. B. Popov in 1967 in the field of physical chemistry - LIS #11 1968 p30.

AGRANOVICh: SDS vl AS20 p2; LZS #13 1968 p27 (with V.V. Sukhorutchenko) ;

LZS #1 1966, p23.

t

AGHRSKU: MS32/74 AS1789 p3; SDS v29 AS1601 pp29-33j SDS v28 AS1508 p17;

2ZP #26 p64; US #36 P59; MS4lA5_ AS2314 p3.

AZNBINISR: SDS v25 AS1Z85 p710; SDS vl3 AS1125 p13; SDS v13 AS1391 p30.

AKhDNDOV: ITS #18 plO.

AKILOV: SDS vl AS21 pi; SGZ pill.

ALBERa MS34/76 AS2644 p4i MS8/76 AS2422 p2; AS3272 pi.

AL'BREKhI: SDS v28 AS1530 pp 167-193; MSI 8/76 AS2484 pi; SDS v30 AS2371 ppl 43-144;
ITS #36 p19; AS3051 p26; MS41/75 AS2314 p3.

ALEKSANDROV: ITS #1 plO; LZS #3 1965 p21; LZS #1 1966 p23 (with N.A. Berikaabvlli)
John Turkevich, Soviet Men of Science, (tfeetnort: Greenwood Preaa,1975), pp7-9.

ALEKSEIeV, Kx AS3051 p26.

ALEKSEZeV, B: SDS vl AS20 p2.

AL'PERT: SDS v30 1S2966; AS3272 pi.

AL'TShOLER,B: AS3051 p26.

.4L'TShDI33l,L: US #14 pp6-11; SDS v24 AS1196 p2j.

ANDRONOV-LEONTOVICh: SDS vl AS72 p2.

fl

137

ANTQNTuIi XZP #3 p28} US #33 pp25, 28,40} ITS #27 pp280-281; US #28 p31»

ARAN07: SOS v25 AS1409 p238.

AR2UKGEL’ SUT: US #2 pi 5} SDS Tl AS20 p2j LZS #10 1968 pl6.

ARNOLD* SDS Tl AS2Q plj SGZ pp114^115| US #45 p8l| L2S #1 1968.

ARONOVi US #7 p17j AS2633) AS3355} SDS 730 AS3299 p466.

ARTsIMOVICh* SDS 74 AS273 p3| Turkrvlch pp26-29.

ASTADBCV* SDS 73 AS159 pi} TurkaTich pp31-32.

lVERBOXh* SDS y1 AS20 p2; LZS #1 1966 p22} SGZ p109.

SDS y1 AS2 p2.

AZBELt,Ds SDS 724 *51212 pi} SDS t23 1S1173} SDS 728 AS 1598 pp645-646}

SDS 724 151196 p2, 151235 p3| SDS t25 1S1299 p2; LZS #1 1965 p91.

A2BSL* ,M* US #37 p26} XZP #3 p56; SDS t25 AS14S5 pTIO} SDS 730 AS2604 p272*
A52966 p263| LZS #9 1968 p31|IZS #3 1965 p27 (with. I«. G. Skrotakaya); LZS ff 1
p20; MS32/74 1S1789 p3| AS3051 p26.

BAEEEShSV* AS3051 p26} AS3355:

BAChlBSUZi SDS Tl AS 46 p3j US #6 p37.

3AGATDR' TaNTa* SDS 74 AS274 pp8-11 j SGZ pi 26 (co-authorad with BOChVAR la 19*
LZS #16 1968 p32 (with BOChVAB and 1.7. Tatkrrieh)

BAUMAN* US #43 PP91-92.

BlXhMZNt US #15 PP12-13} ZZP #3 p15} SDS 728 AS1552 p38} MS8/75 AS2006 p6}
SDS t6 AS435 pi} 1S3051 p26} MS41/75 AS2314 p3.

BALAU51* SDS 71 AS20 p2} LZS #20 1968 p62 (with A. 7. Vvadanakaya, L.A. Misha
and Xa. I. Shixokora)

BARABANOV* SDS 713 AS422 p5, AS42Q p17, AS426 pll, AS600 pp13,26} US #47 p27
AS3051 p26.

BARANOVXCht SDS 7l AS20 p2.

BARBOZt SDS 713 AS1391 pi 24; LZS #6 1965 p119 (with A.7.Tudla and la. S.
Mikhanoaha) ; LZS #6 1965 p4 2 (with L.7. Ghupziaa and A.B. Paahkor).

3ASSALZ00* SDS 7l AS20?p2} SGZ p120.

138

3EGUU« SDS y13 -AS1390 p41 j SD3 y24 AS1212 p4j SDS v25 AS1299 p50j US #26 p15;
X2P #25 pp26, 28; XZP #27 p21> X2P #29 p24;IZP #30 p20; SDS 722 ASIO84 pp1-5j
AS3051 p31j US #44 PP33-34.

HBE3N,3* AS3051 p26; MS21/77 AS2956 p2; AS2646; MS24/76 AS2558 p4.

AS3051 p31j MS19/*77 AS2966 p2; MS8/76 AS2422 p6; KS19/75 1S2130 pi;
SDS 728 <181557.

BEUNCfVSm* ZTS #45 p29.

BELSTsET: XXS #2 p15; SDS tI AS46 p2; LZS #5 1968 p2l6.

SDS ?22 AS1106 p29.

imiYtnpnrwraTat SDS 71 AS1 p4, AS37 pi, AS96 pi; SDS 712 AS 399 p3? SDS t20
AS1007 p98; SDS t28 AS1552 p382; XZP #1 pll; US #8 p60; XXS #6 p57; SDS 74 AS289
p2; SDS 76 AS469 ppl-14; MS11A4 AS1552 p2.

HELOQZEROVs SDS t28 AS1501 pi ; SDS 730 AS2371 pp143-144; MSl/76 AS2451 pi?
MS8/76 AS2422 p2.

taeri>T«g»mTOicTT« SDS v25 1S1<J05 pp21 1-216, AS1406 p219.

BSHZZMSmt XXS #5 p19,50; SDS vl AS46 p3.

HEHGi XXS #2 p19; SDS tI AS21 pi j SDS 724 AS1196 p2; SCZ pi 22 (co-author wit>
A.l. Takhtadahyan in 1964).

BEBKIIlBLXXt SDS 71 AS72 p2.

BESmt SDS 71 AS 20 p2; SGZ p122; LZS #10 1965 p14, 160.

HLIHChEVSKIXi SDS 7I p3; SGZ p123 (initials are probably either 7.3. or
1JL)

BLXuMEUi SDS t2 JUS107 p199j LZS #1 1968 p201 (with A.X. Shuhladaa, T.M.
Mayevskaya, A.D. Xyaburu.) ; LZS #10 1968 p176 (with 7.M. Zhdanov and O.P.
Peterson) t LZS #11 1968 pl82 (with G.X. Akinshina and D.S. Zasukhin).

aoChVARi SDS 71 AS 20 p2; SGZ pi 26 ( co-authored with BAGATUR'XaNXs In 1966);
LZS #10 1968 p55 (with N.P. Gambaryan, 7,7, Mishchenko and L.A. Kazitayna) ;

LZS #16 a968 p32 (with BAGAXDH'XaHTs and A.7. Tutkavich).

BQDNOVAJ SDS 7l AS72 p2.

B0GAChE7i SDS t23 AS1171 p2.

139

BCrTsOTA* MS6/77 AS2854.

BQKShim* SDS rl AS2Q p2; SG2 pi 25.

BOLIHUXEVICht SDS v2 AS 107 pp33, 199.

BOLONCTi ZZP #31 p22; XTS #29 pp51-52; ITS #30 pp88-89; MS34/76 AS2631 ppl-26;
AS3051 p26j MS8/76 AS2422 p6; US #44 p65.

BONDAR* ,2: SDS y25 1»1394 pS7.

BONDAR*, 7* SDS Yl AS46 p2.

BONBARChUK* XTS #5 p50j SDS y28 AS1550 p13; SDS yl AS46 p2.

BONGARD* SDS yl AS7 2 p2.

BORISOV* SDS Yl AS21 p2.

BORUVISOV: XTS #32 p86.

BOVShESSBOV* SDS yl AS72 p2.#

BRAILOVSKAIA* AS3051 p26; MS34/76 AS2644 p4j MS24/75 AS2156 pi; MSl/77 AS1857
pi; MS32/*74 AS1789 p3.

BRAILOVSKII* SDS y25 AS1485 p710; XZP #3 p56; MS24/75 AS3099 p3; AS3051 p26;
MSl/76 AS2451 pi; MS8/76 AS2422 p6; M542/75 AS2311 p2; MS32/74 AS1789 p4;

L2S#5 1968 p193 (with M.I. Shraybar, S.N. ' Braynaa, and 1.3. Ruaakoy) .

BRANCVERi XTS #26 pi 4; XZP #1 p22; LZS #2 1968 p32 (with A.S. Vaail' by and
In. M. Gal* f gat); LZS #13 1965 p33 (with TadOBER and E.7. ShcharMnln) ;

LZS #2 1968 p42 (with G.A. Vitolinyah and R.K. Dutaxre).

BROVXDt XTS #35 p40.

BRUShLTNSKAYa* SDS yl AS20 p3.

BRXaDOSQIat SDS v2 AS107 p200; SDS yl AS2 p2.

BUIKO* XTS #35 PP41-42; XTS #36 p59; AS1935; MS27/74 AS1758 ppl-2.

BURMISTBOVICh* XTS #2 p24; ZTS #6 p4; XTS #6 pp4-6, 30; XTS #10 p46;

XTS #20 p27; SDS t4 AS274; ITS 45 p78.

BURShim* XTS #23 p22.

3IK0VA* SDS v13 AS1391 pp69,111.

1U0

CMILAXhlaN* SDS vl AS72 p5; MS10/75 AS2054 PP4-6; US #1 1965 p55 (with
HERKEISLIT, YDVALEV and Yu. I. Arshavskiy).

ChMIIZE* SDS v24 AS1196 p2j I2P #1 pp25-26; US #16 p36j US #10 pl8;

US #28 p43.

ChERNAVSKTI: DSC rl AS2Q p4.

ChERNYShOV: US #18 pp3-5; SDS v8 AS604 ppl-6; US #39 p37.

Chnmov* US #26 plO; US #27 p29j XZP #2 p24i us #34 p34i US #39 p41.
ChUEKOVSKH, D: ITS #46 pp45-46.

Choraovsm, Gt XZP #27 p23; US #46 PP45-46.

DAHIELi SDS v2 AS107 p33 } SDS vl AS1 p4j US #8 pp26,46.

DAVYDOV, G* US #29 pp51 -53; US #42 p34.

DAVYDOV, Vt MS32/74 AS1789 p4-
DEMHUIi SDS vl AS2 p2.

*

DEZAt SDS vl AS2 p2.

Trnmr* SDS vl AS72 p2; US #3 1968 p65j US #1 1968 p44.

DUGCfVl US #6 p60; SDS v4 AS288 p2.

DXHAEGRGt SDS vl AS72 p2.

DIONISUeV* US #8 pp 36-37.

rasmix SDS Vl3 AS420 p17, AS 426 pll, AS600 pi 4, AS601 p55; LZS #3 1965 p62
(with T. Yu. Ugarova) ; US #8 1965 pl47 (with Yu. Z. Gendon); SDS v4 AS278 pi;
SDS v5 AS 322 p2; SDS v6 AS440 p4*

DOBHDShHIi SDS vl AS1 p3| SDS v23 AS1156 p9; SGZ pi 53; US #11 1968 p27 (with
HQLOS); US #12 1968 p95.

DVQSKIN* US #14 pp6-11; US #1 1965 p47 (with Ye. I. Golub).

DVQBZDs US #5 p50; SDS vl .4546 p3j US #9 1966 p44 (with T.7. Karpenko,

D.?. Mironova, and Ye. A. Shilov).

DYaD*UlIi AS 30 51 p32; MS8/76 AS2422 p6.

DZZS.AleVAt SDS vl AS2 p2; AS2633; AS3051 p27; MS8/76 AS2422 p6.

DZfcSSESTt SDS v12 AS 379 pp27-30, AS1 1 S3 p3, AS1629 ppl-2, AS1879 p3}

SDS v2 AS109 p2; ITS #8 p28,59f ITS *31 p131j SDS ?4 AS283 p2; SDS vl AS103 pi.

DZZuSt SDS vl AS46 p2; L2S #13 1965 p34; LZS #3 1965 p30.

Brnr.iMiF, Gt SDS vl AS2 p4; SDS v2 AS107 pp31-33.

Si:DgL,MAII> 7x SDS vl AS2 p4j SDS v2 AS107 pp31-33j LZS #9 1966 p39 (with
:-L.S. Shaykin).

SJGSL’GASDT: Turkevich, p99 ;SDS v3 AS159 p2; I TS #14 p7; SDS v29 AS1651 p323;
SDS v25 ASI48O po78.

SSSASx MS2V76 2558 p5j MS42/75 AS2311 ?2; ITS #45 p72.

FAIaHMAUi AS3051 p31.

?.*DEIa7A: SDS vl AS2 p4-

FAZN: SDS v30 AS2604 p275, AS2953 p652; ITS #46 p26; MS5/75 AS1964 p14;

HP #25 pp28,44»* AS3051 P31; HS27/77 AS3035 p2; MS2V75 AS2156 pi; 1-IS2V75
AS2099 p3; D2S #8 1963 p46; Uafe 1966 p34 (with G.M. Genkla).

FATEEL’SQN* SDS v6 AS 390 p3.

FEDOHaamx SDS n AS2 p6; LZS #7 1968 p22; LZS #1 1968 pi 14 (with 7.3. Artamkin
and L.P. Babikova).

FZm: ITS #37 p53; LZS #29 1968 p33 (with 7. A. Sonks and Tu. P. Popov) .

FEJHA* US #37 p53.

FBI* HS#2 p18; ITS #5 p49; SDS vl AS21 p2; LZS #3 1966 (with 7.3. Lagunov).
FILIFPCf7: ITS #47 pp137-138.

FEI* ITS #18 p27; ITS #22 pp2D, 23-24; SDS v30 AS2518 p3.

FT3KEL' ShDSZDi SDS v30 AS2841a p65; SDS v13 AS1673 p21; HP #25 p42;

AS3051 P30; MS8/76AS2422 p6; MS32/74 AS1789 p4j MS24/76 AS2558 p4; ITS #45 p72.

FIShHASi ITS #6 p60.

FLI3-IA1I* SDS vl AS20 p3; possibly ths L.M. Flitaan who co-authored in the
field of geophysics with L.7. Molotova in 1965 - LZS #1 1966 p47 - and with
L.P. Zaytsev in 1965 - LZS #5 1966 p56.

?C2ETa7: SDS v8 AS5o4 p4.

1U2

Jem:: ITS #1 ?10; ITS #5 ?49; SDS vl AS20 p2; SGZ ?p232-233| SDS v20 AS10C6 ?6.

rajaS-SSJECEIsKIZ* International Herald Tribune. Hovenber 24 1975} LZS #48 1966
p49 (with 7. In. Gavrilov and A.D. Frank-Sanenetskiy) .

F3E H-L'U* International Herald Tribune. March 6 1979.

73EZICCI: SDS vl 3 AS426 pll, AS600 pp4,13, AS601 p55, AS420 p17} SDS v4 AS278 pi;
SDS 75 AS322 p2; SDS y6 AS44P p4.

FBIDMAHs SDS 7l AS21 p2; LZS #9 1968 p37 (with A.3. Mikhaylovskiy) .

FUZS* SDS vl AS2Q ?4; LZS #12 1968 p18; LZS #13 1968 p29 (with GEL’FAND) ;

LZS #27 1968 p34 (article about FUSS, written by G-hiulLLa, 3.7. Shabat, and
L.A. .Ayzenberg).

GABOVICh, L* ITS #12 p17.

GABOVICh, la* ISS #12 p17; LZS #1 1966 p23.

GAHEZ07* SDS v28 AST 552 p386.

GAL'PEHIDs SDS 724 AS1191 pp3f, 25.

GASIE7* US #32 p89; ITS #34 p28; US #35 p45; SDS 7l AS20 p4; SDS 71 AS1 o3;
AS3051 p27; MS41/76 AS2756 p2j MS4V75 AS23U p3} SDS 729 AS1652 p 326j ITS 43*pp50-51

GAUShMAET: SDS 7I3 AS1125 pp23-24; US #22 p14} LZS #6 1965 p23.

G44ruSMAH* US #40 pi 35} LZS #1 1968 p91 ( with M.M. Aleksandrovskaya, 7.N.

Larina and 7.U. Mats)} LZS #4 1965 (with M.M. Aleksandrovskaya anri L.G. SamoyloTa) .

GEL’FAIID* MS10/75 AS2054 p4} SDS 7I AS2Q pi, AS18 p2; TurkeTich, p1l6 ;

SDS 723 AS1156 p9; SGZ pi 41} LZS #13 1968 p29 (with FUSS) * LZS #12 1968 p14
(with FUSS); LZS #5 1965 p77 (with 7.1. Bryzgalov, PTalETsKIX-ShAPIBQ and M.L.
Tsetlin); LZS #8 1966 p27 (with. M.I. Grayev).

GZL’FAilDEEZM* SDS v13 AS1125 p4D.

GEL'MAN* US #37 p54; LZS #19 1968 p86 (with 7.G. Tudin).

GEHKEIs SDS vl AS2 p2; AS 22 pi; AS3051 p27; MS19/77 AS2966 p2; MS8/76 AS2422 p6;
SDS 729 -4S1652; ns #45 p78.

GSRBERa HS24/75 AS2099 p2.

GZRShOVTCh* SDS 71 AS2 p2; HS #5 p52; ns #19 p32; ns #27 p 33.

GZL'BEDGOBII: MS2/78 .AS 3099 ?3.

GiLTair;* ns #37 023.

1^3

r.Tvnrrr:* SDS vl AS2Q p3, AS1 p3; SGZ p143 (co-authored with FTaUTsgEI la 1965);

LZS #12 1963 p14 (with L.R. Volevich); LZS #10 1963 p17 (with VHHE8G).

GH5Z3UF.G: SDS v3 AS159 pi; Turkevich, pp120-122; LZS #6 1965 p30 (with G.F.
Zharkov); SDS v23 AS11 56 pS.

GHEam* 2ZP #3 p56; LZS #6 1965 p30 (with V.M. Zontorovich) .

GLADKII: CCS #2 pl6; SDS vl AS21 p2; LZS #11 1965 p134; LZS #? 1966 p2Q.

ns #27 P43; US #24 p22; LZS #6 1968 (with L.Z. Gaskin) .

GODZhEIIOV: SDS v12 AS379 p6.

GOL’DHLAI: SDS v13 AS426 pll.

GCL'DShim, G* SDS v13 AS1391 pp69, 111; 2ZP #2 p15; XZP #29 p5; SDS v30
AS3116, p76; AS3051 p27; MS19/77 AS2966 p2.

GOL«BShlSZN, I: SDS v13 AS 1391 pp69» HI; 2ZP #2 p15; AS3051 p27; MS19/77
AS2966 p 2.

GGL’TAHD* SDS v30 AS3265 p703; MS5/*75 AS1964 p13; AS3272 pi; MS2/78 AS 3099 p3;
AS3051 p27; MS19/77 AS2966 p2; MS21/77 AS2956 p2; MS24/75 AS2156 pi; MS8/75 AS2314
p3; ASl/77 ..SI 857 pi; LZS #6 1965 p30; XZI#14pp6-12.

GQL'DFAHB: MS19/*75 AS2130 pi.

GQLO* SDS vl AS20 p3; LZS 93 1968 p24j SGZ p145.

GOLUB: ITS #4 p37 •

GOLUBEV: US #34 p77.

GCRBAII: US #11 p44-

GORDEZeV: US #40 pp127-128; AS2633; LZS #32 1968 p95 (with K.G. SherameVev) .
GORDO: SDS v5 AS346a.

GQRODZOV: US#5 p51; LZS #38 1968 p83 (with lu. B. Chechulia and T.3. Satovskaya)
GQZhIZ: SDS vl AS46 p 3.

GRA2AK’ : US #2 pl6; US #32 p78; SDS vl AS20 p3i AS1 p3, AS7 2 p2; SGZ p14S.

GHI3: SDS vl AS2 p2.

GRISJIZOV: SDS vl AS46 p2; LZS #? 1965 p25; LZS #8 1965 p75.

GSIG0R'*S7: SDS vl AS46 p2j LZS #3 1965 p29.
aaiShE* SDS vl AS2 p2.

GuHF3Lf ; ITS #45 ppS0-3lj MS32/74 AS17S9 p4; MS24/76 AS2553 p5.

GliEVICh* SDS V 4a72 p2; probably the A.S. Gurvich who co-authored an article
on atmospheric physics with KALLTSEUT07A - LZS #23 1963 p71 .

GuHTICh, A: ITS #2 pl6; SDS vl AS72 p2j SDS 730 AS3299 p466; LZS #1 1966 p55
(with Ze. 7. Sidorova, A. Ze. Tumanova, and Syoy Fen ')? MS42/75 AS2311 p2.

GUSTOs* SDS v24 AS1212 pll; SDS v13 AS1391 p3% AS1125 PP56-57, AS1673 p26.

GTTSE7* ITS £7 pp17,26; US #9 p19; ITS #3 p55; LZS #9 1966 p70 (two articles*
one with 3. Ze. Bykbovakiy and L.F. Hagibinaj the other with H.G* Gavrilova
U. Dzhalilov).

IL»IChS7: US #2 pl6.

IMShErnnZ* SDS Vi AS2 p 3; SGZ pl63| LZS #9 1966 p29 (with 7.F. D'yachenko);

LZS £7 1966 p30 (with D.S. Nada^hin) .

IGFEx AS3051 p27.

IOFFE* .553200.

ISA207A* .1S3051 p27j MSI 9/77 AS2966 p2j MS8/76 AS2422 p6.

I7LE7* US #1 pi 3; SDS v23 AS1163.

ZA3AH07, F: US #32 p86.

KABAKOV j St SDS vl AS20 p3.

KADIZeV: US #8 p4S; SDS v12 .IS379 p51| SDS vl AS40.

OGAN07* SDS vl AS72 p3} LZS #12 1968 p28 (with 7.G.Pesehanakiy) * LZS #3
1965 p28 (with F.G. 3ass and S.A. Grade skul) ; LZS £7 1965 p28 (with A.M. ladigrobov):
LZS #6 1965 p28 (with A. Za. Blank and Zty Lu)j LZS #8 1966 p35 (with I.2J. Lifshits)*

IAGAH07A* SDS vl AS72 p3.

IAUiISTIUI07A* SDS vl .AS72 p3; LZS #23 1968 p71 (with A.S. Gurvich).
UKEDQKDSTSZAZa * SDS vl AS72 p3

2AMP07S US #33 ?53} US #45 pp60-6lj US #47 p129.

2UAZe7: SDS vl AS2 p3j SDS v4 .1S2S3 p2.

145

KilZZTXCXDIZi ITS #29 p69.

ZAPIMKChDK* AS3051 p27j SDS v3C AS3249 P563J AS3202 pi j SDS v30 AS3141 p1l8.

KAPITsAi XTS #14 pp7-11j SDS v28 AS1552 p382| SDS v23 AS1156 pS; International
Herald Tribune. October 18 1978.

KAPLAN x SDS vl AS1 p4} SGZ plooj AS3355? SDS v4 AS288 p2j SDS v5 AS302 p8.
KARAS£7x rrs #7 p18.

mPOVIChx MS41/75 4S2314 p3j MS8/76 AS2422 p6.
kasakhj* rrs #34 p54.

KAShEJAx SDS vl AS2 p3.

KATaGNIS* MS41/75 AS2314 p 3.

KAZlCbKOVt XTS #49 pp26-27.

SEDER-STEPANCfVAi SDS vl AS72 p3.

KELDXSh* SDS vl AS18 p2, AS29 p2, AS72 p3| SGZ p168j LZS #28 1968 p32
(with A .5. Kozlov).

KELPPES2S* SDS vl AS20 p3.

KhAHJOV’* SDS v12 AS379 p49, AS1879 p3} ITS 13 p4D; US #8 p48.

KhAIT,M* AS1S97; MS8/76 AS2422 p5; MSl/77 AS1857 plj MS27/77 AS3035 p2.

KhAIT, Itu SDS v25 AS1418 p337.

KhAKhAIeV* SDS vl AS88 p2; AS3051 p30j AS2633? MS8/V6 AS2422 p4.

KhAULOV: SDS v12 AS1877 p38.

KhAZAtlOT: SDS vl AS2 p4» possibly the 3.1. Khasanov who co-authored an article
on measuring equipment in 1967 with L.5. Corn - LZS #5 1968 p37.

SbEISEIi International Herald Tribune. November 24 1975.

KhKELEVSKIYxSDS vl AS20 p4; LZS #33 1968 p34.

KhHIPL07ICh: SDS vl AS21 p2; LZS #12 1968 p34 (with L.B. Okan')j LZS #3 1968
P44 (with L.B. Okun*)j LZS #24 1968 p39 (with 7.7. Sokolov).

KH07x XTS #43 K? 91-92.

KU-a SDS vl AS20 p3; SGZ pi 69; LZS #13 1968 p30; SflS v5 AS302 p8.

lUo

KIRILLOV* SDS vl AS20 p2; SGZ p169-170 (co-authored with GELT AND in 1964);

LZS #9 1968 p25; LZS #12 1968 pi 5.

KIItXNITs* SDS vl AS2 p3.

KISELEVICh: SDS v13 AS426 pi 1 .

EESL.IK* ITS #32 p85j IZP #27 p22; 1S2951; US #45 pp73-74.

KISLINAx SDS 74 AS274 pi 4; Poser. 4th Special Issue, J-me 1970, pp43, 61;

L2S #10 1966 p177 (with I.I. Nikol'skaya, N.M. Shallna and T.I. Tlkhonenko) .

mi SDS v13 AS1125 p39.

KHMMOVAi AS305 1 p28; MS8/76 AS2422 p6.

KNUNIaNTs* SDS v3 AS1 59 p2; Turkevich, pi 66; LZS /9 1966 p44 (two articles*
one with N.le. Golubeva and D.P. Del'taova, the other with S.T. Kocharyan and
BQKhLIN); LZS #6 1965 p42 (with S.E. Zurabyan, L.P. Basteykene and 0*7. K11' diaheva) ;
LZS #4 1968 p44 (with B.L. Dyatkin, K.N. Makarov, and R.A. Bekker) j LZS #4 1968
p45 (with ARQN07 and Xu. A. Cheburkov); SDS v23 AS1 1 56 p8.

KOGAN* SDS v13 AS42Q p17, AS&26 pll; SDS v5 AS322 p5.

KOLMOGOROV* ITS #1 p9; Turkevich p171.

KCMODROVA* SDS v4 AS288 p2.

KONx ITS #2 pl6; SDS vl AS72 p3; LZS #13 1966 p23.

KQNDRAI'EV* SDS rl AS20 p2; SGZ p171.

KONENKO: SDS vl AS2 p5.

KONSTANTINOV: SDS vl AS20 p3.

KOPYLOV* SDS vl AS2 p3; SGZ p171 (probably G.I. Kopylov)

KQHChAK* SDS v30 AS2542 pp1,5; AS3051 p28; MS41A6 AS2756 p2; AS2633; MS8/*76
AS2422 p3; LZS #1 1966 p26,

KQRENELIT* SDS v22 AS1071 p5, AS1085 ppll, 166; SDS v13 AS426 p24, AS601 p23,
AS1390 p2, JS1085 p5.

KOROLEV* SDS vl AS46 p2; LZS #46 1968 p37 (with B.D. Konstantinov).

KOSTERINA* ASJ051 p 28; MS8/76 .1S2422 p4{ MS41/75 AS23U p3f HS8/75 AS2006 p6;

SDS v4 AS289 p2.

1U7

KOVAIZV: ITS #8 p25i ITS #9 p2; US #14 pp6-11, 34-35; SDS v30 AS3129 p359,
AS2371 pp143-144j SDS v24 AS1196 p2;SDS v4 AS288 p3; ITS #34 p5; ITS 37"p24;

SDS v4 AS264 pi; SDS vl AS103 pi, AS72 p3.

SOVALEVSKAla: SDS vl AS2 p5.

KOVKERi MS2/78 AS3099 p.3-

KBXSTI: US #1 plO; US #27 p33; SDS v24 AS1196 p2; SDS v28 AS1552 pp384, 386;
AS3051 p32; MS8/76 AS2422 p5; SDS vl AS2 p3, ' AS20 p4.

KBONHOD, It US #1 plO; US #2 p17; SDS vl AS20 p3; SGZ pp175-176; SDS v2Q ASIOOt

p6.

KBONBOD, Lt US #2 p17; SDS vl AS20 p3; LZS #10 1966 p39 (with N.I. Zhirnov).
KKOZhKOVt SDS vl AS20 p 3; SGZ p176; LZS #10 1966 p30; LZS #1 1965 p23.

EttLOTi SDS vl AS20 p3; LZS #8 1965 p19.

KODEQIi US #40 pp13>134.

KULAGIN t SDS vl AS20 p3.

KULAKDVi SDS vl AS21 p2; SGZ pi 77.

kdutovi sds v8 as 564 p3«

KDUuPINt SDS vl AS46 p2.

NDBOSht SDS vl AS20 p2; SGZ p178; LZS #27 1968 p34 (article about KDRQSh,
written by ALEKSANDROV, L.A. Skoroyakov and B.I. PlotkLn).

KOBSAt US #38 pp35-37.

KUShEVs SDS vl AS 50 pi; probably the 7.7. Khahav who authored article in the
field of microbiology with S. le. Bresler, R.A. Kreneva and H.I. Moeevitakiy in
1964 - LZS #8 1965 p53.

KUShNAREVi US #46 p48; LZS #34 1968 pi 59 (with A.S. Bykov, I. A. Smirnova and
V.S. Tyurin).

KUSIANOTICht SDS v25 AS1418 p338.

mChETSUZ, Lt US #2 p19; US #5 ppU-16; US #10 pp33, 43; US #11 ppl6-17;
US #13 p30; SDS v22 AS1102 p2; SDS vl AS2 p3, AS50 pi; US #14 pp23-34; ITS #34
p68; SDS v6 AS383 pi 3.

KVAChEVSKU, Ot SDS vl AS 57 ppl-2; US #5 p48; SDS v30 .AS3008 p259.

1U8

LADXZhENSEIX* US #30 pp93-94} US #32 p85} US #34 ppll, 32} LZS #4 1965 pi 5}
.a Tvardokhlebova (Hew Torki Khronika Preaa, 1976), pp21-22.

LANDAx SDS v25 AS1408 pp225-236, AS1415 PP301-309} ITS #30 pi 14} HP #26 p6}
ZZP #28 pp56 -62} XZP #29 p5} AS3384 p3} MSI 9/77 AS2966 p2} MS8/76 AS2422 p5}
MS8/75 AS2006} AS3051 p28} MS41/75 AS23U p3 } US #46 pp5-3.

LANDIS » SDS vl AS2Q p2} SGZ p179.

LATROVx ITS #8 p36.

LAVUT: US #8 p25} US #10 p9} SDS v30 AS3299 p467} SDS v4 AS288 p3} US #3*
p28} SDS vl AS72 p3} AS3051 p28} MS8/76 AS2422 p5} MS41/75 AS23U p3} MS8/76
AS2Q06 p6} SDS v29 AS1652 } SDS v30 AS2966 p263, AS2518 PI 59} SDS vl AS103 pi.

UZQBUHt International Herald Tribune. November 24 1975*

LEONTOVIChi US #14 pp4,6} ITS #17 pll} SDS v24 AS1196 p2} AS 1283 pi} SDS v23
1S1156 p 8} Turkevich, p2 20} SDS vl A372 p 3.

LZRNERx SDS v30 AS2966 p263, AS3231 P304} SDS v24 AS1196 p2, AS1211 p2, AS1212
pi, AS1235 p5} SDS V22 AS1085 pi 64} SDS v13 AS1391 pp121-122} ITS #24 p36}

AS3272 pi} MS2/78 AS3099 p3} AS3051 p31} MSI 9/77 AS2966 p2} MS41A6 AS2756 p2.

►

LEVICh, lex International Herald Tribune. November 17 1978} SDS v24 AS1235 p4j
AS1196 pi} SDS v28 AS1522 p105} IZP #2 pl6.

LSTICh, 7* International Herald Tribune. October 24 1978, November 17 1978}

SDS v30 AS2604 p273} SDS v24 AS119o p2, AS1235 p4} HP #3 p40} Turkevich, p220.

AS 3272 pi} MS2/78 AS 3099 p3} AS3051 p28} MS41/76 AS2756 p2; LZS #3 1965 p32
(with 7.S. Krylov); LZS #1 1965 p32 (with 7. A. Kir'yanov).

LEVIN x SDS V23 ASII56 p9} Turkevich, p219} SDS vl AS2 p 5} Delo Tverdnkhlebtwra .
P33.

LE7IT* SDS v24 AS1191 PP3, 25.

LEVSbENKDx SDS vl AS20 p3.

LIBERMAN* US #8 p32} LZS #1 1965 p55} LZS #39 1968 p35 (with SMQLXaNINOV and
L«N. Ennlahkin)

LIFShITa* SDS v13 AS1391 pp113, 123.

LUXNKDt ITS #5 p50.

LZPSDVSKZI* SDS v13 AS426 pll, AS600 p13.

LISOVSKAIa* US #15 p21} SDS v30 AS3299 p466} ITS #39 p6l} AS3051 p28;

1B8/76 .132422 p6} MS41/75 AS2314 p3} MS8/75 AS2006 p6; LZS #3 1965 p69 (with
H.3. Livanova and Q.7. Sllonova) •

LITTHIOV* SDS v29! AS1609 pp57-59; SDS v20 AS1007 p98; SDS v2 AS 107; XZP #1
rrs #4 p34; XTS#6 p63; SDS vl AS68 ppl-2; SQZ pi 82.

LODShlCh; SDS vl AS20 p2.

LGZAKSm&t I=.tarna.tlonal Herald Tribune. April 27 1979, p5.

LQZANSSHt Intaraatlonal Herald Tribune. Apzll 27 1979, p5.

LDBChlKKO* SDS vl AS46 p2; LZS #47 1968 p23 (with A.S. Davydov).

LUChK07* SDS vl AS2 p2; ITS #2 p17.

UJHTs* SDS v25 AS1485 p710j XZP #3 p56; IIS #37 p26; SGZ p183; MS8/76 AS242
MS5/76 AS2355 pi; SDS vl AS20 p3; LZS #11 1965 p80 (with B.B. Lapuk, S.S. Zakl
and N.Xh. Garifullina) ; MS32/74 AS1789 p4.

um*i* rrs #43 pioi.

LZSEMQs ZTS#13 p35.

LXuBABSECT. Xi SDS v28 AS1524 ppl 15-129; SDS v30 AS2931 PP337-341, AS3019 p'
ZZP #1 pp7-8; ITS #28 ppl 6-21; US #37 p50; ZZP #28 pp24-25; AS3051 p28; SDS v.
AS 3031 ; MS19/77 AS2966 p2; MS8/76 AS2422 p5| MS1 1/74 AS1552 p3.

LiuBABsm, iuj rrs #6 p6o. -

LZuBIHt SDS vl AS46 p3.

UuSTZRNISj Turkevich, p228J SDS vl AS20 pi.

MAKSIMOVAS SDS vl AS2 p5fc.

MALTDIt SDS v13 AS426 pll, AS600 p13.

MANDKL'TaVXZG: SDS v24 AS1212 pi; AS1211 p2; SDS v13 AS1673 p28; LZS #1 196f
(with Perelomov, A.M.)

MAUEVIChi SDS v29 AS 1674 p493; SDS v28 AS1536 pp257-81.

MAHUJi SDS vl AS20 p2; SGZ p186; LZS #10 1966 p30.

MARChOKOVi SDS vl 1372 p3.

maresdii MS41/75 AS2314 p3; MS41/75 AS2315 pi; rrs #35 p22; AS3051 p3i; mss/

AS2422 p6; XIS #40 pp70-74> MS2/75 AS1910 pi.

MAHGULISi ITS #32 p86; possibly the A. Za. Margulis who co-authored an artic
with S.I. Zetel' in 1965 - LZS #10 1965 pU),

150

•*3

HARKOV* SOS vl AS20 plj SGZ pi 86; Turkevich, p^.

MAHTEK' TallQV At US #41 p78.

MAShKOTi SOS vl 1SS3 p2; AS3051 p28.

HAShiCOVAl SOS 729 AS1611 pp67-69; AS 30 51 p28j MSI 9/77 AS2966 p2; SOS v28 AS1582;
SOS 723 AS1171.

MATVITaHEOi US #3 p37; SOS rl AS46 p3*

MEDVEDEV* ITS p62; IDS 724 AS1199 pp122-126j ITS #26 p22j I2P #1 p26; HP f
pp 37-39? IIS #14 pp7-8.

MEDVEDQVSHIaS SOS tI AS72 p3.

MEXMANs SOS 730 AS2903 p19, AS2993 p294, 1S3299 p467, AS3265 p703, AS2903 p19;
IIP #25 p49; HP #26 p36; SOS 71 AS20 p2, AS2 p5j AS3384 p3; AS3272 pi; MS2/78
AS3099 p3; AS3051 p31; MS19/77 AS2966 pi; MS41/76 AS2756 p2; LZS #3 1965 p33.

MEL'NIKOTs ITS #5 p52.

MBHIOVt SOS 712 AS379 pp31,$3.

MKS'ShOVs SOS vl AS20 pi; SGZ pi 88; Torkavich, p240.

MEShKDVSKZZs SOS vl 1072 p3.

MHUNl SOS vl AS2 p3.

MIGOALs SOS v3 Ail 59 p2; Turkevich, p242.

MIKhAILOVl* SOS vl AS2Q p3; LZS #20 1968 p30.

KZZfaXZaVt ETS #49 p74.

MnCLHSKHs MS5/75 AS1964 p14? MSS/76 AS2422 p5; MS24/75 AS2156 pi; MSl/77
AS1857 pi; MS32/74 AS1789 p4.

MTT-T™* SOS vl AS72 p3»

*

KXUSbSVIChs ZTS #15 p21; ITS #5 p49; SOS vl AS2 p3; 80S v4 AS288 p3.

MINLOSs SOS vl AS20 p3, AS1 p3? SGZ pl89; LZS #11 1968 p27 (with DOBRUShlN) ;

LZS #9 1968 p37 (with SINAI).

MUIUKhlNi Mark Popov sidy, "i View froa-Inaida; Thraa Lattars on Soviat Scianca,"
Surrey Volume 23 No2 (Spring 1977-78), pp 143- 144.

151

♦

MXR&AZaNt US #41 p70; US #43 PP99-100; LZS #19 1968 p41 (with S.G. Jll:
la. P. I-latochkin and A. A. Podsdnogia) •

MXZXamt rrs #37 p24; AS3051 p31j MS8/76 AS2422 p5} MS41/75 AS2314 p3,

MHIuBu SDS r30 AS2?Q3 p19j XZP #25 p49; XZP #26 p17; AS3051 p28; MS19A
AS2966 p2; MS21/77 AS2956 p2; MS41/76 AS2756 p2; LZS 09 1965 p30 (with JUZ.
Kitaygorodskiy and Tu. G. Aaadov) .

MQGILEVERx SOS v22 AS1071 pp3,7, AS1085 pllj SDS v13 4S1390 p2, AS1085 t
SDS 716 AS479v pIQ; SDS v6 AS431 p2.

MOTShHanHi SDS V24 AS1212 pi, AS1211 p2.

HOKAHm SDS vl AS72 p4«

MOSTOVAIa* SDS vl AS72 p4.

Mom»j rrs #6 p6i.

MDChNIKl SDS vl AS2 p3; SDS v4 AS 278 pi; SDS v5 AS322 p2.

MISLOBODSKHi rrs #4D pi 35; I2S #3 1966 p54 (with JUM. Ivanitskiy)

MXuGK* US #22 pp20-21, 24| XZP #2 pi 3; XZP #3 p41; rrs #30 pi 16.

HAXDQBFt rrs #2 p17j SDS vl AS21 p2.

NAXhMANSCNx SDS vl AS21 p2.

NAXAPOTt SDS vl AS2 p3; AS2504.

NAUMOV* MS42/74 AS1806 ppl-15; MS25/74 AS1719, AS1718.

NAZAHZaU: ITS #48 pp31-33| XXS #47 p38.

SEXFSKht rrs #6 p60; SDS v4 AS288 p3; ITS #32 p92; LZS #8 1965 p51 (articl
about ENGEL* GARDT) .

mnasi sds v8 AS564 pi3; vsze/n AS2919 ppi-5; its #42 p22; rrs #43 pp45-
ITS #47 pp39, 41.

NHQLAXaV* ITS #16 p36; SDS v30 4S3299 p467; AS3051 p28; MS8/76 AS2422 p6;
p89-91, 39; XZP #12 pp25-31, Vol’nova alovo v31-32 ( Frankfurt xPoaav, 1978) pp

NCKVAISAS* ITS #29 p69.

N07IED7}Pt SDS vl AS20 pi, AS18 p2; Turkavioh, p268.

152

1

NOVIKOV, St SDS vl AS20 pi, AS72 p4j SGZ p193.

OL'ShOVAIat SDS 730 AS2522 p328.

otrcflhnhTgi SDS 71 AS20 p3; SGZ p195-196j LZS #8 1965 p2.

QRAIeVSKTlJ SDS tI AS46 p3; LZS #9 1963 p36 (with S.M. Levitaldy); LZS #9 1966
p31 (with le. Za. Kogan and S.S. Moiseyev) .

QHEVKDV: SDS vl AS20 p3.

CHLOVi SDS v30 AS2903 p17, AS2371 p143j SDS v43 AS1501 pi; ZTS #32 pH, 105>
rrs #34 p15; rrs #36 p15; MS8/75 AS2006 p6; ZZP #25 pp7, 87-38; X2P #30 p68;
MS4/77 AS2795 ppl-7; MS3V*74 AS1813 ppl-2; MSIl/74 AS1594; IZS #10 1966 p36
(with 7.21. Bayyer).

QHLOVSm* SDS v30 AS2371 pp 143-1 44; SDS v28 AS1501 pi; ITS #16 p31; US #30
pi 13; XIS #34 pp60-6l; US #41 p31; MS8/76 AS2422 p5{ MSI/76 AS2373 ppl-8.

OSMANOV, St SDS Vi 2 AS379 pp 32-33.

OSMANOVx SDS v12 AS379 pp31-33| SDS vl AS91, AS85.

PAALt AS2919, p4*

PALAMODOVi SDS vl AS20 p2; SGZ p199; LZS #23 1968 p38.

PANFILOVAt AS3051 p28; MS41A6 ASZ756 p2*

PAHOVt SDS vl AS20 p3.

PANOV At SDS V4 AS283 p3.

PATAlaKAKt ITS #41 p25.

PAVLEIChUKt ITS #1 plO; XIS #2 p17; XIS #3 p29; ITS #5 p 51; SDS vl AS2 ps;

SDS v2 AS108 pi; LZS #5 1965 p29 ( with L.H. Oaachev and S.S. Babotnov).

PKKt SDS v2 AS107 PP31-32; LZS #13 1966 p54-

PETSXHKOt ITS #8 p35; SDS v30 AS3299 p467; AS3051 p29; AS3355; AS 3200; AS2633.

PSXSOVt SDS V23 AS1163; LZS #50 1968 pi 30; LZS #24 1968 pi 26.

PSCSZalaVSKlZat MS41/75 AS2314 p3.

PETOKhOVt XZP #26 pp17-l8; LZS #6 1974 p73 (with T. Vitanov); LZS #31 1974 p91
(with 7.1. Tishchenko).

153

T

PZVZI2ER: SDS 713 AS426 pll, AS600 p13.

PBfflKOVt SDS t25 AS1460 P552; ITS #16 pp31-32j ITS #32 p88; ITS #15 pp15-1<
L2S #13 1965 p28; SDS t21 ,131024 ppl-4.

PLOTSTHi US #11 p45.

PLXuShcht SDS t30 AS1829 p325, AS2518 pi 59 j SDS 729 AS1619 pp141-152; SDS 1
AS1420 pp372-373j XZP #1 plO? ZZP #5 p50j XZP #29 p60j SDS 71 AS 52 p2j SDS v*
AS264 pi, AS2SS p2; SDS 7l AS103 pi; SDS 728 AS1550 pp3-22.

POLFTaPOL’ SKUt SDS 730 AS2518 pl61, AS2522 p328; ZXS #8 p35j SDS t1 AS2 p;
MS8/76 AS2422 p6j MS8/75 AS2006 p6j SDS 729 AS1652, AS1622; SDS 74 AS 264 pi,
AS289 p2«

POKROVSKAIA* SDS 7I AS72 p4*

PQKHOVSKHi SDS 7l AS46 p3.

pcumovt SDS 730 AS3299 p466; XZP #28 p26; XZP #29 p23; XZP #31 pp9,24;
AS3355| AS3271J ITS #47 pp7>75.

PQLXoSOKi ITS #37 p53. *

PQL'SKH: SDS t24 AS1212 p2, AS1211 p2, AS1235 p4; SDS v13 AS1390 p45, AS13
pp17,31; SDS 79 AS628 p5j XES #34 p68j MS1A6 AS2451 p2.

PCtlaKi SDS 71 1S1 p3, AS2D p3? SGZ p203j LZS #13 1968 p29 (with L.G. Gurin
and 3.7. Rayk) .

PCKCMAEEV, 7.7.< SDS 76 AS421 p2; SDS 74 AS251; SDS 71 AS2 p3; SDS t9 AS662
POWCMAHEV, 7.1. t SDS 7l AS20 p2; TurkeTich, p9.

POPOV, At SDS 7l AS 2 p 3.

PCPOV, Alak.i Dele p23.

POPOV, 7t SDS 723 AS1171.

POSimOVt SDS 71 AS20 p2; SGZ p205.

POSTHIKOVAt ITS #43 pp48-49.

POSVZaJSKHi SDS 7l AS72 p4.

POVZIJERi SDS 71 AS20 p2; SGZ p201.

PRIVOROTsKH* SDS 729 AS1604 pp4>44; SDS 728 AS1509 p27; MS1/*76 AS2451 pi.

15*

PUT* i SDS vl AS46 p3j US a® p37.

PlaXET sEIX-ShAPIRO i MS5A5 AS1964 pUj SDS vl AS20 p2; SG2 p206; MS24/75
AS2156 pi 1 KS24/75 AS2099 p 3f LZS #3 1965 p23 (with S. NOVIKOV and ShAFAEEVICh) .

RA3EICVICh: SDS vl AS72 p4.

RAIeVSKIIr SDS v25 AS1418 p337.

mmitti ZTS #18 p17.

Bjmx MS24/75 AS2156 plj MSI/77 AS1857 plj MS32/74 AS1789 p4j possibly the
D.V. Baum who co-authored In the field of measuring instruments in 1964 with
L.G. Btkin and V. la. Zanovskiy - LZS #3 1965 p59.

RAMONAS: ITS #29 p70.

RAPP: US #7 p17; SDS vl AS2 p3j SDS v2 AS107 p214j probahly the I. Xu. Rapp
who coauthored with I.N. Shklyarsvskiy and R.G. Xarovaya in the field of physics
In 1968 - LZS #48 1968 p49.

RAShKINEHB: SDS v29 AS1654 p329.

RAShSTNIS: SDS v29 AS1654 p3^9.

RATHER: SDS v25 AS1299 p49.

:: HEGEL* SON: ITS #41 pp9-12j AS3051 p29j MSI 9/77 AS2966 plj MS8/76 AS2422 p5;
MS25A4 AS1718 ppl-5.

HEKDRRAIsd: AS3051 p29j MS41/75 AS2314 p3.

HEZNIKOV: SDS vl AS2 p4*

RIGERMAN: SDS v13 AS601 p58j IIS #17 pp31-32j LZS #3 1966 pp29-30 (with Z.I.
Shapiro, S. A. Fedulov and Xu. N. Venevtaevjj SDS 76 AS440 p3.

HIPS: SDS v24 AS1Z74 plj XTS #10 p21j ITS #11 p45j ITS #7 p17j US #8 pp30,56;
SDS 72 AS110 pi.

RODIONOV: ITS #2 p18; ZTS #1 plOj SDS vl AS72 p4.

ROGEISm: SDS 725 AS14S5 p710j SDS 7I3 AS1391 pp17,30j I2P#3 p56j SDS 7I3
AS1673 p26j USl/76 AS2451 p2.

ROKhLUJ: US #8 p36j LZS #4 1968 p40 (with S.T. Kocharyan and OUNXaNTs)j
LZS #6 1966 p44 (with S.T. Kocharyan and KNUNZaNTi).

BBBXZaESBXZt SDS vl AS2 p6j SDS 74 AS253 p3j IIS #29 p65| SDS 74 AS288 p2:
SDS Vi AS103 pi.

. BCMAI70VA* rrs #2 pi 8$ SDS vl AS72 p4.

wvmmti rrs #36 p57j XTS #37 p6l j SDS vl AS88 p2j MS8/76 AS2422 p6j AS3051 I

rOZENFEL’D* SDS vl AS18 p2; possibly tbs Ze.L. Rozenfel'd who co-authored
an article in the field of biochfflistry with D.M. Helen* k±y in 1967 - LZS #24
1968 p71.

ROZEIIShim* SDS v30 AS2953 p653; IZP #25 p44j MS41/75 AS2314 P3; US #34 pS
US #35 P45| MS3/78 AS3099 p3? AS3051 p29j MS ‘1/77 AS1857 pi.

ROZhSCVA* SDS v20 AS1006 p9j SDS vl AS21 p2.

RUBUTAt SDS vl AS2 p4.

RDDAKDV: SDS 76 AS469 pp2,6j SDS vl AS1 p4, AS103 pi J AS3051 p29j 11S8/75 AS2
p6; SDS 729 AS1652; SDS v4 AS288 p2.

KDDOT* SDS 7-1 AS72 p/

HDZhUsEZi SDS 7*22 AS11 06 pp8-9.

OTUN* Palo Kovaleva (New Toric, Khronika Press, 1976), p40j MS41/75 AS2314

SAKhABQV* SDS v30 AS657b p2oL SDS 729 AS1658 p353, ASI696 p755; SDS v28 AS1
p33, AS1541 P301, AS1545 ?309; SDS 725 ASI463 pp559-566, AS1470 pp6l 3-622, AS14
p£76; US #7 p17j MS19/77 AS2966 p2j SDS 723 AS1156 p8.

SALANSUX* IZP #26 p24; AS2646} LZS #13 1965 p4 2 (with A.I. Droldjfc, R.P. Sod
and S. Sh. Gendelev) j ITS #44 pp92-93j US #45 p72: LZS #46 1968 p36 (with A.I.
Poll sidy, R.G. Khlebopros, and L.7. Mikhaylovskaya) .

S ALOVA* XZP #28 p31j AS3051 p29j MSI 9/77 AS2966 p2j MS41/76 AS2756 p2; MS8/7<
AS2422 p6j MS41A5 AS2314 p3j US #46 p79.

SAMSONOV* XTS #8 p30j SDS v22 AS1077 p8; XTS #18 pp36-37.

SARHEY: SDS 7l AS46 p4*

SELEZHEKKO* XTS #24 p7j US #26 pp18-19j US #27 pp2-5.

SELI7AN0V* SDS 74 AS288 p2.

SEMENOVA* SDS vl AS46 p4.

SEMZaChUN* SDS vl AS21 p2.

SEN 3EECV* XTS #45 p79.

ShABASh07* AS 3051 p30j MS8/76 AS2422 p6; AS2264; New York Tlaes. October 20,

156

4

m

ShABAIt SDS vl AS21 p2.

ShAFAHEVICht Int^pnatlonAl Herald Tribune. November 18-19 1978; SDS v30 AS2575
o533, AS3003zh p549; SDS v29 AS1658 p353; SDS v27 AS13C0 ppl-71; 22P #2 p49j
ITS #34 p84; Turkevich, ?334J SDS vl AS18 p2, AS20 pi j SC-Z p241; AS3051; MS34/74
AS1813 p2.

ShAZhTERDIaUt AS2014; AS2285 p12; ITS #33 p44i MS8/76 AS2422 p6; ZTS #42 p34j
US #39 PP32-34.

ShANINAt SDS vl AS46 p2.

ShAPIRO, It US #32 P92.

ShAPIRO, Zt SDS vl AS2 p6, JS20 p4; SG2 p240.

ShAHXGIHt SDS vl AS20 p4.

ShEKAt SDS vl AS46 p2.

ShEPELSVi MS21/77 AS2956 p2; MS8/76 AS2422 p5; MSl/77 AS1857 pi; AS3051 p30;
MS32/74 AS1789 p4| MS 24/7 5 AS21f6 pi; possibly the M.I. Shapelev who co— authored
with T.S. In men ehchikove and 7.7* Chernaya in the field of meteorology in 1968 -

LZS #46 1968 jffl.

ShERt ITS #11 p54; ITS & p47.

ShESTQPAL' : US #2 p18; SDS vl AS20 p4*

ShIFRINt SDS vl AS72 p5.

Shut SDS vl AS72 p5; LZS #1 1965 p55 (with 7.1. Krinaidy).

ShlEhANGVICht ITS #2 p18; SDS v30 AS2522 p328, AS1829 p325; SDS v24 AS1196 p2,
AS1244 pi; SDS v28 AS1552 p384; IZP #1 p14; IZP #2 plO; US #30 p88; ZTS #32 p63;
SDS vl AS20 p4; MS41/76 2756 p2.

ShlLOVt ZTS #5 p50; SDS vl AS20 p2; SG2 p242.

ShMAZNt SDS vl AS2 p4.

ShMIDTt SDS vl AS72 p5; LZS #17 1968 p45.

ShTENGEL'r ZTS #2 p19; SDS vl JS21 p2.

ShTEBH, At ITS #34 pp15-19; AS1905.

ShlERN, 7t ZTS #34 pp15-19; AS1905; AS2354.

157

ShTIL’MANi HS33/75 AS2267 ppl-3, AS2270 pi.

ShUBl SDS 7l AS72 p5.

ShDSTER: SDS vl AS2 p4; AS3355; AS3051 p30; AS2633; MS8/76 IS?/,?? p5| SDS v29
AS1652 p3j D*la Tvurriokhlahova. pp 33-34.

ShchADRINl SDS vl AS2 p4.

ShchARAKSms ITS #34 p66; IS? #26 p78j XZP #31 p5; AS3051 p30; MSI 9/77
AS2956 p2; MSl/76 AS2451 p2j MS19/75 AS2130 pi f MS32/74 AS1789 p4.

ShchEGLOV: SDS vl AS2 p4; AS 3 249; AS3202 pi; AS3051 p30; AS2633; MS8/76
AS2422 p4.

SIMQLONt SDS vl AS72 p4.

SINAI* SDS vl AS20 p2; Turkevieh p172; SGZ p220; LZS #23 1968 p39.

SIPAChEV: SDS vl AS2 p4; SGZ p220.

SIROnmt AS 3051 p28. *

SITZNKO* SDS vl AS46' p3; LZS #34 1968 p38 (with 7.7. Kharchenko and S.A. Shadchi
SIVAShlNSKH* ITS #23 p21.

SKLXaRENKOt SDS vl AS46 p3.

SKDBEZeVt SDS vl AS20 p 3.

SKDROKhQD* SDS vl AS46 p3; ITS #5 p50; LZS #4 1965 p17.

SK7XRSTOJ AS3051 p31; SDS v2 AS 107 p33.

SMIRNOV: SDS vl AS20 p2; Turkevieh, p8; SGZ p222.

SMDLKIN: AS3051 p29; AS2633; MS8/76 AS2422 p4.

SMOLXaNINOV : SDS vl 4S72 p4; LZS #1 1965 p55| LZS #39 1968 p35 (with LIBERMAN
and L.N. Braishkin) .

SMOLXaNSKIX* SDS vl AS20 p3; SGZ p222.

SCTDA: SDS vl AS50 pi.

SOKOLOV : SDS vl AS21 p2; probably the V.V. Sokolov who co-authored with
KhRIPLGVICh in the field of nuclear physics in 1968 - LZS #24 1968 p39.

SOKOLOV, Xu. D* SDS vl AS46 p3; LZS #14 1968 p29.

158

SOKOLOV, Xu. lit SOS vl AS72 p4.

SOLOV’EV: US #27 p31j AS3051 p6.

STaEOSTIH: SDS vl AS p4| LZS #9 1965 p27 (with V. Kaa’yanov).

ST50r.’JAIa: SDS v30 AS2839 pp43,45, AS2966 p263, AS3195 po79j SOS v28
AS1559 p446; ITS #18 pp14^15; US #22 plOj AS3051 p29i US #43 p44* US #44 pp62-63$
US #47 pi 29.

SrUDEUKOVi ITS #5 pp48-49| SDS 76 AS383 p8.

SUSbKO: SDS vl AS2 p4.

SEBOIaChKDVSKXX: SDS vl AS2 p6; SDS v4 AS288 p 2. *

TALAHTOV: US #18 p35j US #10 p5| US #8 p41j SDS v4 AS253 pp2 -3.

TAMMs US #14 pp7-8j Turkavich p388.

TARAXUTA* AS2909.

TABTABOVSKUi US #6 p60.

TATABSUI: SDS vl AS2 p4, AS72 p4; SDS v23 AS1156 p9? SGZ p226.

TAVGER: US #5 p51; US #6 p60.

TAVGER, B: SDS v13 AS1125 p21j LZS #9 1965 p32.

fflOi SDS 725 AS1401 ahch p200, AS1401a p180, AS1418 pp318,332,336.
TER^GBIGGROV: US #23 p29.

TIKhCMEROVt SDS 7l AS20 p3.

HMAChEV* SDS vl AS2 p4, AS22 pi j AS3355* MS8/76 AS2422 p5; MS8/75 AS2006 p6:
5DS 729 AS1652} SDS 74 AS288 p3, AS289 p2| SDS 7l AS103 pi j a*3051 p29.

TOLPXGO: SDS 7I AS46 p4j LZS #1 1968 p45 (with S.M. Zubkova); LZS #8 1965 p27
with G. Xe. Chayka).

TCMChUK* SDS vl AS46 p2; LZS #9 1965 p25 (with XJL Dykaaa).

TOShlllSm: US #5 p51.

TOVSTOKhA: SDS vl AS72 p4.

mFCJIOV, E* MS8/76 AS2422 p4{ AS2644; AS2633J
ntaraaUopal darald Tribune ifcrvamber 24 1975,

AS2527; AS2296; US #38 p86j

159

TBIFQH07, 7* ITS #26 plO, Vol'nove slovo. v31-32 (^ankfurt* Pose?, 1978) tp36.
TsAPEDKD* IIS #35 p43.

TaEULDi SDS v13 AS601 p55; LZS #8 1965 p74 (with B. Te. Kinber).

TaEZhMISIREHZO: ITS #2 pIS; US #5 p49j SDS vl AS46 p2; LZS #12 1965 p40.

TsELXKh* XZP #27 pll.

TalHMAB* SDS vl AS2D p4.

TadOBERi ITS #45 ppSO-81; LZS #13 1965 p33 (with BRANOVER and E.7. Sheharbinin)
LZS #13 1965 p42 (with E.7. Sheharbinin and A.G. Shtern) ; LZS #14 1968 p42 (with
Kh. E. Kalis).

TaOKEHMAN* SDS v30 p203;SDS vl6 AS479a pp23,25, AS1056 ppl-26; ITS #18 p21j
ZZP #14 p7; SDS v6 AS44O p3.

TUPITsZNs SDS vl AS2 p4.

TDBChlir, 7* rrs #14 pp4,9,36; SDS 725 ASI464 p567j ITS #7 pl6; XZP #25 p32;

XZP #28 p25; SDS 71 AS2 p4; MStf/76 AS2756 p2; KS19/77 AS2966 p2; AS3051 p29;

LZS #20 1968 p32j ITS #45 pp77-78,

TURChlN, Ks SDS vl AS2 p4; SGZ p229; LZS #45 1968 p50 (with M.H. Preobrazhenakay
L. A. Savel'eva and N.N. Suvorov); LZS #4 1968 p84 (with 7.P. Bystrov and M. Xa.
Karps? sidy).

TURDNDAle7SKAIai SDS v4 AS274 p3.

TDRDHDAXe7SKII : SDS v4 AS274 pp13-14.

TUTUBAId* SDS vl 4520 p3j SGZ p229.

TVEBDOKhLEB07* ITS #24 pp19-20; AS2483 pi; SDS v29 AS1678 p551; SDS v24 4S1196
p2, 451255 ppl-20, AS1290 pi; SDS v28 AS1519 p99, AST 552 p382; SDS v25 AS1478
pp 657-658; SDS vl6 45479a pp4D-43; ZZP #1 p43; XZP #3 p14; US #41 p27; XZP #29 p24

TXaGAXt SDS vl AS46 p2; LZS #9 1965 p32 (with Xu. 7a. Gurevich).

TIuHINi rrs #43 p89; XZP #23-24 pp15-l6.

TXuRIUAi SDS vl A520 p3.

UBOZhKO* SDS v28 AS1521 p103; SDS v4 AS289 p2; XTS 49 p39; XZP #1 p17;

XTS #13 p38j XTS #36 p56; XTS §J1 p60§ VoVncrre slovo V30-31 (Frankfurt* Posev,1978)
P133jl

160

batmt mu ■ t i i r *<t ~ ' f t. ' tawaMHMH-'

ULAII0VS2II: 23051; 1227/77 AS 30 35 p2; 1219/77 22966 p2; 1221/77 .22956 p2;
22264*

ULITsKAIai SDS vl AS2 p6.

USPEHSKH:SDS v1~22 p4* _ J

U7AS0V: US #4D'p130.

VAIHBZRGx SDS vl 272 p2.

V AIDER: 1224/75 AS2C99 p3.

7juamr* sds vi 213 pi; sgz pi30; lzs #1 1965 p47; lzs #1 1965 pi 51 (with

.11. Shvemberger) .

VABDAPETCaN: ns #34 PP53-54*

VAHPAKhOVSKIX* SDS vl AS20 p4; SGZ pi 28.

72TL,EV: nS #5 p51.

VASU’EVSETI: SDS vl 22 p2; SGZ pi 28.

72SEHHAHt SDS v21 p2j SGZ p^29.

7EKLZE07* ZZP #19 p50.

VELIKANOV: MS 41/75 AS2314 p3.

7EtmH0VA,lx ZZP #2 p13* SDS vl AS1 p3.

VELIKANOVA, Xi AS3051 p26j AS2633; 128/76 AS2422 p4j AS2272; 22237;

53/75 AS2006a.

VELIKANOVA,!: SDS v30 pi 59, 23299 p466; SDS v24 AS1196 p2; SDS v28 21552 p386
2 vl 21 p3j 23051 p26; 23009; SDS v28 AST 578 p2; SDS v4 2233 p2.

VENTTsEL: SDS vl 220 p3; SGZ pi 33.

VENTTsEL: SDS vl 220 p3; SGZ pi 33.

VEPRINTsEV: ns #10 p23; ns #8 p37.

veretenov: ns #1 pi7; ns #19 pi 3.

VETUKbSOiSnXt SDS vl 220 p3; LZS #13 1965 p24.

m»Ta!2i ns #2 pi 5; XZP #26 p22; SDS vl 21 p3; 220 p4; 23051 p27.

161

VEISERGiSDS 7l AS20 p3; SGZ pi 34; LZS #13 1965 p25? L ZS #10 1968 p17
(with GHiollUiQ •

vnraovEissiis rrs #32 p27.

VITUShSINt SDS 7I AS20 p2; SGZ pi 35.

Vljuminsm: SBS 730 AS2522 p328; SDS 728 AS1524 pp1l6-129; LZS #6 1965 p25
(with A.X. Pankratov) .

VOLEVICh: SDS 71 AS20 p3j SGZ pi 36.

1

VOLKOV: rrs #32 p77.

VGLOSfalHi SDS 724 AS1191 pp3,25.

VQL'PIN: SDS 730 p203; SDS t24 1S1196 p2, AS1262 ppl-21, AS1266 ppl-18;

SDS 728 AS1519 p99; SDS rl6 AS479a PP4, 34, AS479b p25, AS479g pp26, 34; SDS 73
AS163 p18; ITS #1 p8, rrs #2 p27; SDS 7 3 1S163 pp 18-20; SDS t1 AS2 p2; SDS 74
AS288 p2,

VOROKEL' : SDS v29 1S1632 p19}| SDS 725 AS14S5 p710; AS1964 p12; US #32 p65;
AS1993; MSI/77 AS1857 pi; MS32/74 AS1789 p4j LZS #48 1968 p49 (with S.B. Garber,
V.M. Mimnitakiy, and V.V. ShchekochUchina) •

VUL> : SDS 71 AS2Q p 3.

WEZEQSZAZa: SDS v2 AS107 p200; SDS 7l AS1 p3, AS20 p3.

VTShEHSKH: SDS 7I AS46 p2; US #5 p18.

ZaBLQHSECI: US #1 plO; ITS #2 p19; SDS 7l AS21 p2.

laGLCM, A: SDS v23 AS1156 p9j SDS 71 JIS18 p2, AS20 p2, AS72 p5; SGZ p249.
laGLCM, I: SDS 7l AS20 p2; ITS #2 p19| SGZ p250.

XajEbOT* SDS 724 AS1212 pll; SDS 725 ASI4I8 p338; SDS 713 AS1391 pll, 135,
AS1673 pp24, 26; XZP #1 p22.

YwCR: MS24/75 AS2099 p3.

laUKELETIChx ITS #37 p24; ZTS #41 p72j ZZP #27 p23; AS3051 p30; MSI 9/77 AS2966
p2; MS41/76 AS2756 p2; MS8/76 AS2422 p6; MS41/75 AS23U p3; Palo Kovaleva. p40.

YainCOV: SDS 7l AS20 p4.

YaHEi-AGAZeVi IIS #45 pp17-18; MS27/77 AS3035 p2.

162

XaShHIOV: SDS vl .4S103 pi.
laVCR: SDS vl AS20 p2.

XaTGEJOV: SDS vl AS2 p5.

XuHOVSKAXa* SDS v13 AS600 pi 3, AS601 p55.
XuSEIAj SDS Tl AS72 p5.

XUSKA: rrs #29 p69.

ZAKhABCV: SDS vl AS21 p2; LZS #12 1965 p35.

ZAKS* SDS vl AS2 p2; AS2633* AS3355t AS3 051 p27; MSI 9/77 AS2966 pi; ITS #42
PP8-9; Dfllo TmrdokM.ahom. pp31-33.

ZANCbSHKO* SDS vl AS72 p3.

ZAEETsKEXj SDS v22 AS1085 p94, 161 f US #23 p21j US #21 p26j LZS #10 1965
pp24^25 (with N.S, Tul’faon, L.S. Chatvarikova and 7.?. Zalldn).

ZASLATSKAXa: US #5 p50; SDS%2 4S107 p205| SDS vl AS 46 p2.

ZASLATSmx SDS vl AS21 p2; LZS #3 1965 p24 (with S.S. Hoiaeyav and H.Z.
Sagdey ev) j LZS #3 1965 p31 (with B.7. Chirikov).

Z2QLHISEEX* SDS Vi AS20 p2.

ZDQEOVXX* US #33 p50; AS2088.

ZEL’DOVICh* SDS v3 AS159 p2j Turkavlch p435j SDS v23 AS1156 p8.

ZhAD'KO* SDS vl AS46 p2j LZS #14 1968 p40 (with 7. A. Romanov).

ZhST£ZU07A* SDS v25 AS1409 p237.

ZhOXOVSKCa* Palo Kovaleva. p40.

m07’E7A* SDS v25 ASI46O p552; US #15 pl6j US #16 p3tj US #13 p38j SDS v21
AS1024 ppl— 2.

a

ZDEZD7SUX* SDS vl AS72 p3
ZDXe7* SDS vl AS46 p2.
ZXUHA* SDS vl AS72 p3.

163

' 1. SDS vl AS1 p4*

2. rrs #11 p44*

3. rrs #5 p52«

4- rrs #6 p6i.

5. SDS 76 JS564 p4.

6. rrs #10 p2i.

7. Barghoorn, p106.

✓

8. Parry, p296.

9* Valentin Turefaln, "Scientists among Soviet Dissidents," Survey. Yol 23 Do
(105) Autumn (1977-78), p87.

10. Loren Graham, Salanen JMiamtnr In the Soviet -Union (Dev Yorktgnopf,
ppl 11-138. (GIKZBQHG and SSL’DOVICh were both opposed to the Intrusion of M»rH
into physics < pi 36)

11. Salisbury, p6.

12. SDS n 1376 p2.

13. ITS #18 p35.

14. US #43 p51.

15. SDS 729 AS1601 p30.

16. SDS 728 1S1530 pl69.

17. MS14/77 AS2S02 pp3-5.

18. SGZ p130.

19« The Medvedev Papers, p Til.

20. SDS 72 JU3134 p3.

21 .. Uark^Poposskyr"6cience Cities: Akademgorodok. at al,"
1977-78), pi 65.

22. Parry, p295.

Survey Yol23 No2 (Spri

r

t

i

Conclusion

1. SDS -728 AS1529 p125.

2. SDS vl AS91 p5.

3. SDS 725 J1S1420 p8,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Axslbank, Albert. Soviet Dissents Inte^actualfli Jew and Detente.
New York: Franklin Watts, 1975.

2- Barghoorn, Frederick C. Detente and the Denocr>tlc_jAjv««*»nt in the
New York* The Free Press, 1976.

3. Chalidze, Valeriy (editor). Bggfltt «*ehchitv orav v SSSR. Iasoas
(January 1973-Sept saber 1978). New Yorks Shronlka Press, 1973-78.

4. Chronicle of Current Events. Issues 28-33 (31 December 1972 - 10 De
1974)* Londons Amnesty International Publications, 1975-76.

5. Delo Kovaleva. New Yorks Shronlka Press, 1976.

6. Delo Tvardokhl New Yorks Shronlka Press, 1976.'

7. Directory of Soviet Research Organisations. Washington, D.C.S Natlox
Foreign Assesonent Center, March 1978.

8. Doman, Peter. "Biographical Sheet - Audrey Nikolayevich Tverdokhleb
(in Russian). Munich* Radio Liberty, 12-14 March 1976.

9.

.. "Who is Soviet Physicist Audrey TverdokhlebovT" Muni

Radio Liberty Research, November 17 1970.

10. Dunlop, John B. The New Russian Revolutionaries. Belmont, Mass.*
No rd land, 1976.

11. Grabar', Igor*. Pia'ma 1891-1917. Mo scows Nauka, 1974*

12. Graham, Loren R. Sciimea and Ph-tlnaophr in the Soviet Union. New Yoz
Alfred A. Snopf, 1972.

13. Gris, Henry and Dick, William. The Hew Soviet Psychic Discoveries.
Inglewood Cliffs, NJs Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1978.

14. International Herald Tribune i November 24 1975 (p4), October 24 1978
November 17 1978 (p4); November 17-18 1978 (p5)j December 30-31 (p3)|
February 14 1979 (p5), March 6 1979 (p4), April 27 1979 (p5).

15* lava stive. October 26 1975 p3.

. 16. Iaeledovatel' sidy Otdal Radiostantsil "Svoboda." So vet skive grazhdanc
za ahchi ahchavut molodvkh llteratorov. Spravochnik No 74. (Munich! Radi
Liberty,) May 1968.

166

17

. Khronika tekushchikh flobvti7. Issues 1-16 (30 April 1968 -31 October 1970).
Poaav. Special Issues 1-6, August 1969-February 1971.

18. Kh-m-tv. teimahehikh aobytiv. Issues 17-27 (31 December 1970 - 15 October 1972)
ft’frfrATfl dakumantav samizdat*. 7ol 10B. Munich* Radio Liberty, November 1973*

19. gh™Tv<v« SaJaahBtftt asteddga Issues 34-49 (31 December 1974 - U May 1978).
New Tories Khronika Press, 1974-78.

20. Letopia* ahurnalavkh stater.

21. Magee, Bryan. Popper. Glasgows Fontana, 1976.

22. Matarislv samizdat*. Issues 11/74, 25/74, *7/74, 32/74, ,34/74, 42/74, 51/74,
2/75 , 5/7 5*3/7 5. 1 0/7 5 , 19A5, 24/75. 33/75. 41/75, 42/75, 1/76, 5/76, 8/76,
18/76, 24/76, 34/76, 38/76, 41/76, 1/77, 14/77, 19/77, 2l/77, 26/77, 27/77,
2/78. Munich! Radio Liberty, 1974-78.

23. Mc7ay, Gordon, E**nln; « Life. Londons Eodder and Stoughton, Ltd., 1976.

24. Medvedev, Tu. "Otkryto dlya neozhidannosti,* #3 1968, pp 127-146.

25. Medvedev, Zhoras A. The Mettvedev Papers. Londons MacMillan, 1971.

26. Medvedev, Zhoras A. and Medvedev, Roy A. A Question of Madness. New Torks
Alfred A. Knopf, 1971.

27. Medvedev, Zhoras A. forifft, .fclflBCfl. lorks Norton, 1978.

28. Parry, Albert. The New Class Divided. New Torks MacMillan, 1966.

29. Penfield, Gary A. The Chronicle of Current Eventas A Contant Analysis. Thesis.
Ganslschs US ART, 1973.

30. Popovaky, Mark. "Science Cities* Akadamgorodok at al.,” Survey 7ol23 No 2
(Spring 1977-78) pp160-185.

31. . "A View from Inside; Three Letters on Soviet Science,"

Survey 7ol23 No2 (Spring 1977-78), pp 141-159.

32. Pravda. August 29 1973 p3.

33. Rothberg, Abraham. T^f Halr^ of Stallp pisaidanca and the Soviet Re^e
1953-70. Itblca NT* Cornell University Press, 1972.

34. Rnaakava aval* . April 29 1976 p5.

35. Salisbury, Harrison (editor). Sakharov Speaks. New Torks Alfred A Knopf, 1974.

167

36. Saunders, George- (editor). Samizdat. Voices of the Soviet Opposition.

Hew fork* Monad Press, 1974. .****.a*

37. SohranlTfl dokunentov samizdata. 7ol 1-30. Munich* Samizdat Archive Association
(Radio Liberty), 1972-78.

38. Thnnw*- John R. and Kruse-Vaucienne. Ursula M. (editors). Soviet So-!..™.-
and Technology* Domestic and Foreign Perspectives. Washington, D.C.*

The George Washington University, 1977.

39. Turehin, Valentin. •Scientists among Soviet Dissidents.* Survey Vol23 Ho4
(Autumn 1977-78) pp86-93.

40. Turkevich, John. Soviet Men of Science. Westport, Conn.* Greenwood Press, 1976

41. Van Hat Rave, Karel (editor). Dear Comrade* Pavel Litvinov and the Voices
of Soviet Citizens in Dissent. New lork* Pitman PuhHaMng J i64^

42. Vol»nove alovo volume 3 1-32. Frankfurt* Posev, 1978.

43. Zaleski, S., Kozlovski, J.P., Wianert, H, Davies, R.W., Berry, M.J. Amann, R.

SSlSBSfl PtJITY In 7??B Paris* Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Develops* nt, 1969. »

166